(      SEP  20  1910 


Divisiou        _  12 

Section         .  t  Ci  O  T    ( 


BY 
LOUIS     MATTHEWS     SWEET 


Roman  Emperor  Worship 

The  Verification  of  Christianity 


Divination  and  Prophecy— A  Study 
in  Comparative  Religion 

A  Critical  History  of  the  Theory 
of  Evolution 

A  System  of  Christian  Theology 


RICHARD  G.  badger,  PUBLISHER,  BOSTON 


ROMAN     EMPEROR 
WORSHIP 


BY 
LOUIS  MATTHEWS  SWEET,  S.T.D.,  Ph.D. 

Professor  in  the  Bible  Teachers  Training  School  of  New  York  City; 

Author  of  '*The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ," 

"The  Study  of  the  English  Bible"  etc. 


■^  OF  ?^ 


BOSTON 

RICHARD    G.   BADGER 

THE   GORHAM   PRESS 


COPYBIGHT,  I919,  BY  RiCHAED   G.  BADGER 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Made  in  the  United  States  of  America 


The  Gorham  Press,  Boston,  U.  S.  A. 


TO    THE    MEMORY 

OF 

MY   FATHER 

AMOS    LEWIS    SWEET,    M.D, 

New  York  University,  Class  of  1866 

WHO 

LEFT  US  WHEN  THIS  WORK 

IN  WHICH  HE  WAS  DEEPLY  INTERESTED 

HAD  JUST  BEGUN 


"How  weU  he  fell  asleep! 
Like  some  proud  river,  widening  toward  the  sea; 
Calmly  and  grandly,  silently  and  deep, 

LiJe  ioined  eternity." 


"Reliquos  enim  deos  accepimus,  Csesares 
dedimus." 

— Valerius  Maximus. 

"Stulte  verebor,  ipse  quum  faciam,  Deos." 
Nero  in  "Octavia^^ 

Act  ii.  l.  450, 


FOREWORD 

THE  following  pages  contain,  in  substance, 
a  dissertation  presented  to  the  authorities 
of  New  York  University  in  partial  fulfilment  of 
the  requirements  for  the  Doctorate  in  Philosophy. 

The  work  now  appears  in  print  and  is  submit- 
ted to  the  judgment  of  the  public  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  University.  The  research  which 
has  gone  to  the  making  of  the  book  was  carried 
on  and  much  of  the  actual  writing  done  in  the 
Latin  Seminar  Room  at  University  Heights. 

I  wish  to  put  on  record  my  sense  of  privilege  in 
having  access  to  this  noble  sanctuary  of  learning 
and  the  incomparable  classical  library  which  it 
contains,  especially  as  this  has  involved  many 
hours  of  fellowship  with  the  presiding  genius  of 
the  place,  Professor  Ernest  G.  Sihler,  Ph.D.,  him- 
self an  embodiment  of  the  best  traditions  of  mod- 
ern scholarship.  My  work  has  been  done  con 
amove  and  it  is  with  the  deepest  satisfaction  that 
I  now  connect  it  with  the  University,  the  Seminar 
Room  and  Dr.  Sihler. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

INTRODUCTION ii 

I.  THE  RULER-CULT  IN  EARLY  ANTIQUITY     .  15 

1.  In  Babylonia 15 

2.  In  Persia 18 

3.  In  China 20 

4.  In  Japan 21 

5.  In  Egypt 22 

IL  THE    RULER -CULT   IN   THE   MACEDONIAN - 

GREEK  PERIOD 24 

1.  Alexander  the  Great 24 

2.  The  Ptolemies 25 

3.  In  Greece 31 

4.  Greek-Asiatic  Dynasties 36 

III.  BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   RULER-CULT   AMONG 

THE  ROMANS 37 

1.  The  Universality  of  Deification  in  Paganism  37 

2.  Deification  and  Mythology 38 

3.  Deification  Native  to  the  Roman  Genius     .  42 

IV.  THE  RULER-CULT  AND  JULIUS  CiESAR     .    .  S3 

1.  C^SAR   AND   THE    DiVI 53 

2.  The  Divine  Ancestry  of  C^sar 54 

3.  Divine  Honors  of  Cjesar   During   His   Life- 

Time 56 

4.  C^sar  As  Divus 58 

5.  The  Julian  Cult 60 

6.  The  Worship  of  Roma 62 

V.  THE  RULER-CULT  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  AUGUS- 
TUS        64 

1.  Life-Time  Worship  of  the  Emperors      ...  64 

2.  The  Worship  of  Augustus  and  the  Augustan 

Cult 69 

9 


10  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

VI.  THE  RULER-CULT  UNDER  THE  SUCCESSORS 

OF  AUGUSTUS 75 

1.  The  Cult  of  the  Augusti 75 

2.  The  Manifoldness  and  Pervasiveness  of  the 

Emperor-Cult 80 

Vn.  THE  RULER-CULT  AS  A  POLITICAL  INSTRU- 
MENT        84 

1.  Its  Politico-religious  Origin 84 

2.  Its  Influence  in  Consolidating  the  Empire    .  88 

VIII.  THE    RULER-CULT   AND   THE    POSITION   OF 

THE  EMPEROR 93 

1.  Deification  and  the  Mind  of  the  Emperor  .  93 

2.  The  Ruler-Cult  as  a  Symptom  of  Decadence  99 

a.  The  Taint  of  Sycophancy 99 

b.  The  Glorification  of  Bad  Men 104 

IX.  THE  RULER-CULT  AND  POLYTHEISM     ...  108 

1.  The  Self-Contradiction  of  Polytheism      .     .  108 

2.  Polytheism  Essentially  Elementary  and  In- 

adequate   no 

3.  Emperor-Worship  the  Final  Phase  of  Pagan- 

ism    Ill 

a.  The  Supersession  of  the  Olympians  .     .     .     .  112 

b.  The  Absorption  of  Mithra  and  Apollo  .     .     .  115 

4.  Polytheism  and  Pantheism 124 

X.  THE   RULER-CULT  AND  THE  JUD^O-CHRIS- 

TIAN  MOVEMENT 126 

1.  The  Jews  and  Emperor-Worship 126 

2.  Christianity  and  Emperor-Worship    ....  127 

a.  TheTeachingof  Christ  and  the  Imperial-Cult  128 

b.  Church  and  Empire  in  the  Book  of  Acts  .     .  132 

c.  Church   and   Empire   in   Nero's   Reign   and 

After  the  Beginning  of  Persecution   .     .     .  133 

d.  The  Causes  of  Persecution 134 

e.  Conclusion — Christ  and  Caesar 140 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 143 

INDEX 149 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  Roman  Imperial  Cult  began  with  the 
first  Caesar  and  continued  until  the  final 
overthrow  of  paganism  in  the  Empire.  An  ex- 
haustive study  of  the  Cult  in  all  its  ramifications 
would  practically  involve  a  survey  of  Roman  his- 
tory during  the  imperial  epoch  and  would  trans- 
cend all  reasonable  limits.  A  bald  analytical  re- 
view, merely,  of  the  data  which  have  passed  under 
my  own  eye  in  the  course  of  this  investigation, 
would  break  bounds.  A  rigid  and  somewhat  pain- 
ful process  of  elimination  has,  therefore,  been  ex- 
ercised both  in  the  use  and  presentation  of  the 
available  data  in  this  field.  Particularly  in  the 
matter  of  the  local  origins  and  spread  throughout 
the  empire  of  the  ruler-cult  I  have  been  com- 
pelled to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  many  alluring  sug- 
gestions. There  are  in  this  region  many  urgent 
problems  awaiting  solution,  which  I  have  not 
ventured  even  to  broach.  They  can  be  solved 
only  by  the  examination  and  analysis  of  hundreds 
of  additional  inscriptions  and  historic  references 
— an  undertaking  which  waits  upon  occasion.    A 

II 


12  Introduction 

fit  and  appropriate  opportunity  for  a  more  ade- 
quate and  exhaustive  presentation  of  the  theme 
may  at  some  future  time  offer  itself.  Meanwhile 
what  is  herein  contained  may  be  counted  as  vital 
prolegomena  to  a  great  and  still  largely  unworked 
field  of  investigation. 

"Ars  longa,  vita  brevis  est." 

The  quite  sufHcient  task,  which  I  have  actually 
set  for  myself,  is  two-fold.  First,  to  exhibit  the 
grounds  upon  which  my  conviction  rests  that  the 
Roman  system  of  imperial  deification  has  a 
broader  context  in  antiquity,  and  strikes  its  roots 
more  deeply  into  the  past,  than  has  often  been 
realized  even  by  those  most  conversant  with  the 
facts. 

Second,  to  exhibit  the  fact  and  to  unfold  the 
significance  of  the  fact,  that  the  imperial  cult,  to  a 
surprising  extent,  displaced  and  superseded,  not 
only  the  hereditary  and  traditional  gods  of  the 
Romans,  but  also  absorbed  and  subordinated  the 
Imported  cults,  both  Greek  and  Oriental,  which 
were  superimposed  upon  the  native  worship, 
hastened  the  decay  and  overthrow  of  the  entire 
syncretic  aggregation  and  gradually  gathered  to 
itself  the  whole  force  of  the  empire,  becoming  in 
the  end  the  one  characteristic  and  universal  ex- 
pression of  ancient  paganism. 


ROMAN  EMPEROR-WORSHIP 


ROMAN  EMPEROR-WORSHIP 

CHAPTER    I 

THE  RULER-CULT  IN  EARLY  ANTIQUITY 

I.    In  Babylonia 

THE  absolute  beginning  of  the  ancient  and 
widespread  custom  of  deifying  human  be- 
ings cannot  now  be  discovered.  Historic  dawns 
are  for  the  most  part  veiled  in  impenetrable  mist 
and  when  the  sun  has  fairly  risen  and  landscapes 
are  clear  and  open  before  us,  human  affairs  are 
already  midway  of  something, — beginnings  are 
already  lost  in  the  distance.  Of  this  much,  how- 
ever, we  may  be  certain, — the  custom  was  al- 
ready established  at  the  beginning  of  that  portion 
of  history  the  records  of  which  have  come  down 
to  us.  The  most  ancient  documents  afford,  once 
and  again,  most  striking  parallels  with  later  de- 
velopments in  the  Orient  and  among  the  Greeks 

15 


1 6     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

and  Romans.  A  dim  and  far-away  reflection  of 
the  movement  in  its  first  phases  may  be  afforded 
by  the  great  Babylonian  Epic  in  which  the  hero, 
Gilgamesh,  becomes  a  solar-deity  with  accomr 
panying  worship.  Another  semi-mythical  hero, 
Etana,  is  also  elevated  to  godhood.  That  this 
elevation  of  heroes  to  divine  honors  is  something 
of  an  innovation  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
hero-deities  do  not  enter  the  celestial  sphere  oc- 
cupied by  other  gods  but  are  kept  in  the  nether 
world.  ^ 

It  was  a  very  general  custom,  also,  to  grant 
divine  honors  after  death  to  prominent  persons 
whose  careers  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the 
minds  of  posterity.  Moreover  (and  the  fact  is  of 
vital  importance  to  this  study)  well-known  histor- 
ical personages  whose  reigns  we  can  date  and 
place  were  the  recipients  of  divine  honors  not  only 
after  death  but  during  their  life-times.  This  is 
demonstrable  in  several  instances. 

Both  Gudea,  patesi  of  Shirpurla  about  3000 
B.C.,  and  Entemena  of  Lagash  about  the  same 
date,  were  deified,  receiving  offerings  and  appear- 
ing in  tablets  with  the  determinative  for  deity  con- 
nected with  their  names.  The  latter's  statue  was 
set  up   in  the  temple   E-gissh-vigal  at  Babylon. 

^Consult  Jastrow:  Religion  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia  (N.  Y., 
1898),  pp.  47of. 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  Early  Antiquity         17 

The  proof  has  been  pointed  out  to  me  ^  In  a  date 
list  of  Abeshu  (2049-2021  B.C.),  the  eighth  king 
of  the  First  Dynasty,  In  which  appears  the  state- 
ment: "The  Year  In  which  he  (Abeshu)  dec- 
orated the  statue  of  Entemena  for  his  godhead." 
The  same  king  erected  his  own  statue  In  the  same 
temple. 

GImll  Sin  (2500  B.C.)  was  deified  In  his  own 
life-time  and  had  a  temple  of  his  own  at  Lagash. 
DungI,  of  Ur  (2000  B.C.)  was  deified.  "Shar- 
ganl-Sharrl,  Semitic  king  of  Agade,  writes  his 
name  commonly,  though  not  always,  with  the  di- 
vine determinative,  and  Naram-Sin  has  his  name 
seldom  without  It."  ^  These  Instances  are  suffi- 
ciently numerous  to  Indicate  that  the  custom  of 
deifying  rulers  both  before  and  after  death  was 
quite  common. 


^By  Prof.  R.  W.  Rogers,  of  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  to 
whom  I  am  also  indebted  for  the  translations  which  appear  in 
the  text.  For  the  antiquity  of  the  custom  consult  Jastrow:  Civ- 
ilization of  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  p.  336. 

*  Dr.  Rogers.  The  same  competent  authority  says:  "Deifica- 
tion was  at  that  time  evidently  begun  even  during  the  king's 
life-time."  So,  also,  Jastrow,  Religion  of  Assyria  and  Baby- 
lonia, p.  561.  Prof.  Jastrow  says:  "We  may  expect  to  come 
across  a  god  Hammurabi  some  day."  Dr.  Rogers  tells  me  (1918) 
that  this  King's  name  actually  appears  coupled  with  the  gods  in 
oath  formulas.  Jastrow's  references  on  this  subject  should  be 
carefully  noted.  In  the  famous  "Lament  of  Tabi-utul-Enlil,"  2d 
tablet,  occurs  this  line:  "The  glorification  of  the  king  I  made 
like  unto  that  of  a  god"  (Jastrow:  Civilization  of  Assyria  and 
Babylonia,  p.  478).  The  context  shows  that  the  king's  homage 
was  an  essential  element  of  religious  duty. 


1 8      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-J^Forship 

2.    In  Persia 

How  ancient  the  idea  of  a  royal  divinity  among 
the  Persians  was  we  have  no  way  of  knowing. 
It  thoroughly  permeates  the  Zoroastrian  docu- 
ments and  must,  therefore,  be  as  ancient  as  they. 

The  Zoroastrian  instance  is  of  particular  value 
because  it  is  really  alien  to  the  system  as  such, 
and  reveals  more  clearly  than  elsewhere  the  rul- 
ing ideas  which  produced  it.  The  Zoroastrian 
system  of  cosmogony  begins  with  Ahura  Mazda, 
the  creator,  and  ends  with  Saoshyant,  the  re- 
storer, of  all  things.  Throughout  this  entire  cycle 
of  cosmic  history  there  is  an  unbroken  succession 
of  leaders  and  rulers  possessing  one  element  in 
common,  the  so-called  "divine  glory."  This  ele- 
ment corresponds,  exceptis  excipiendis,  to  the  "di- 
vine blood"  or  ichor  in  the  veins  of  the  Egyptian 
Kings.  A  brief  resume  of  the  facts  will  serve  to 
bring  to  light  the  essential  principles  involved. 
In  Yast  XIX  ^  sixteen  sections  are  devoted  to  the 
praise  of  this  heavenly  and  kingly  glory,  which  is 
transmitted  through  the  line  of  Iranian  Kings, 
both  legendary  and  historical,  to  Saoshyant.  In 
this  Yast,^  the  glory  is  spoken  of  as  a  quality 
"that  cannot  be  seized."     Elsewhere  ^  it  is  said 

*Zamyad  Yast — see  S.  B.  E.,  v.  23,  pp.  286  seg. 

°XIX.  55  et  passim. 

'Aban  Yast,  XLII — cf.  Zamyad  51,  56,  etc. 


The  Riiler-Cult  in  Early  Antiquity        19 

that  this  glory  took  refuge  in  the  sea  during  the 
reigns  of  foreign  dynasties  and  wicked  kings. 
This  means  that  the  divine  quality  and  dignity 
belong  exclusively  to  the  legitimate  line  of  Iranian 
Kings. "^  The  Dinkard  ^  deals  with  the  descent  of 
the  heavenly  glory  from  king  to  king.  The  royal 
genealogy  is  a  part  of  the  system.  It  has  been 
well  said  that  this  passage  would  serve  as  a  short 
history  of  the  Iranian  monarchy.  The  person  of 
the  legitimate  ruler  is  sacrosanct  because  of  an 
unique  divine  substance,  imparting  a  correspond- 
ing divine  quality  which  puts  him  on  a  level  with 
the  first  man,  with  the  Amesha  Spentas,  with  Zara- 
thustra  himself,  and  with  Saoshyant,  the  restorer, 
all  of  whom  with  his  royal  ancestors  are  mani- 
festations and  embodiments  of  Ahura  Mazda. 
Two  tendencies  of  thought,  moving  towards  a 
common  center,  meet  in  this  conception,  which,  as 
I  have  said,  is  really  alien  to  the  spirit  of  Maz- 
daism,  namely,  an  excessive  idealization  of  roy- 
alty and  a  tendency  to  materialize  the  divine 
glory.^ 

This  deification  of  the  Persian  rulers  persists 
through  all  later  history.    In  a  passage  of  iEschy- 

'See  Bundahis  XXI:32,  33;  XXXIV :4. 
^'Bk.  VII,  Ch.  I. 

®  Herodotus    (1:131)    expresses  the  spirit  of  Mazdaisra  when 
he  says  of  the  Persians:      "  wj  fihv  ifidi  Sok^cip  '6tl  oOk  dp6pu}7ro<f>{>eds 


20     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

lus  ^°  Atossa,  the  daughter  of  Cyrus,  Is  addressed 
as  consort  and  mother  of  the  god  of  the  Persians. 
Diodorus  Siculus^^  states  that  Darius  was  ad- 
dressed as  a  god  by  the  Egyptians,  adding,  quite 
incorrectly,  ^^  novov  ribv  airavroiv  ^oLdiKkoiv.  Momm- 
sen  points  out  that  uniformly  the  title  of  the  tri- 
lingual inscriptions  at  Naksi  Rustam  is  "The 
Mazda-servant  God  Artaxerxes,  King  of  Kings  of 
the  Arians,  of  divine  descent,"  ^^  while  we  have 
a  palace  inscription  ^^  of  the  Emperor  Alexander 
Severus  (222-235  A.D.)  *E7rt5^/xta  ^eoD 'AXe^dz/Spou. 
This  brings  us  through  the  Graeco-Asiatic  blend- 
ing to  the  Roman  Imperial  house,  well  on  toward 
the  end  of  its  history.  A  Roman  emperor  deified 
in  Persia  and  in  Persian  style  presents  a  striking 
example  of  historic  continuity.  Nor  is  this  by 
any  means  the  end  of  the  story  as  we  shall  see 
later.i* 

3.    In  China 

So  far  as  China  is  concerned  I  need  simply  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  addition  to  the  regular 
process  whereby  deceased  ancestors  are  raised  to 

"  Persae,  v.  157     B^ov  /jlcp  evvareipd.  Hepauv  deov  5i  /cat  p.-fjT'qp  %<pv%' 

"1:95. 

^ Mdi(T5a(rvos  ^eos  Apra^dprjs ^Aaik^vs  ^acTLK^uv' ApidvCjp eKyivovs deQv 
(C.  I.  G.,  4675.)  The  Arsacide  title  was  nearly  identical.  See 
Momm.  Rom.  Gesch.   Achtes  B.  Kap.  XIV,  pp.  414,  420. 

"  C.  I.  G.,  4483. 

"Below,  p.   115. 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  Early  Antiquity        21 

the  position  of  deities,  a  certified  group  of  In- 
stances occur,  some  of  them  very  ancient,  in  which 
conspicuous  Individuals  were  elevated  to  a  special 
place  among  the  deities.  For  example,  Fu  Hi 
(B.C.  2952-2838),  noted  as  a  great  clvllizer,  was 
elevated  to  god-hood.  Nung  Shen  and  How  Chi, 
founder  of  the  Chow  dynasty,  were  both  elevated 
to  the  position  of  gods  of  agriculture.^^  They 
were  both  kings  who  had  done  much  for  this 
branch  of  appHed  science.  The  living  emperor 
during  the  entire  Imperial  epoch  has  been  an  ob- 
ject of  worship  throughout  China,  the  most  uni- 
versal of  all  the  gods  of  China. ^^ 

4.    In  Japan 

Shintoism,  which  is  usually  considered  the  one 

peculiarly  indigenous  and  characteristic  religious 

development  of  Japan,  involves  the  deification  or 

quasi-delfication  of  the  Emperor.    This  deification 

is  the  core  of  the  system  which  Is  for  that  reason 

frequently  called  "MIkadoism."  ^^   The  Japanese 

have     also     a    well-developed    ancestor-worship 

which  some  scholars  look  upon  as  an  exotic  from 
Chlna.18 

"  See  Ross:  Original  Religion  of  China,  p.  154. 
"De  Groot:   The  Religion  of  the  Chinese,  pp.  Csi',  Moore: 
History  of  Religions  (N.  Y.,  1914),  p.  12. 

"  Griffis:  Religion  of  Japan,  N.  Y.,  1895,  pp.  45f. 
"Moore:  History  of  Religions,  p.  no. 


2  2      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-lForship 


5.    In  Egypt 

The  extreme  antiquity  of  the  custom  of  apotheo- 
sizing kings  as  well  as  its  persistence  to  later  times 
finds  yet  another  illustration  in  the  history  of 
Egypt.  At  a  very  early  period,  before  the  earhest 
pyramid  texts,  there  was  brought  about,  probably 
through  the  influence  of  the  priests  of  Heliopolis, 
a  synthesis  of  primitive  solar  pantheism  with  the 
deification  of  the  state  in  the  person  of  the  de- 
ceased ruler.^^  This  takes  us  back  to  at  least 
2750  B.C.  The  king  ascends  to  the  realm  of 
the  sun-god;  later  becomes  his  assistant  and  sec- 
retary, then  his  son  and  finally  becomes  identified 
with  him.  He  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  god, 
e.g.,  he  is  called  "a  great  god."  -^ 

At  the  time  when  the  fourth  dynasty  was  suc- 
ceeded by  the  fifth,  which  was  an  usurping  and 

^'Renouf:  Hibbert  Lectures,  1879  (London,  '84),  pp.  i6if,  cf. 
Breasted:  Development  of  Religion  and  Thought  in  Ancient 
Egypt,  (N.  Y.,  1912),  pp.  i2if. 

The  following  text  (Breasted,  R.  A.  E.)  gives  the  technical 
phraseology  of  deification  (Vol.  I,  Sec.  169).  "Snefru:  King  of 
Upper  and  Lovjer  Egypt;  favorite  of  the  tvoo  goddesses;  Lord 
of  Truth;  Golden  Horus;  Snefru.  Snefru,  Great  God,  Who  is 
Given  Satisfaction,  Stability,  Life,  Health,  all  Joy  Forever."  Cf., 
Sees.  176,  236,  264,  same  volume,  in  which  expressions  equally 
strong  occur.  For  the  origin  of  the  title  Son  of  Re  consult 
Rawlinson:  Egypt,  vii,  pp.  60,  84.  For  the  details  of  applied 
deification  see  Erman:  Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,  pp.  56,  60,  73, 
77,  503.  Almost  all  details  found  later,  including  the  marriage  of 
brothers  and  sisters,  go  back  to  the  earliest  days.  The  royal 
title  "Son  of  the  Sun"  is  found  among  the  Incas  of  Peru. 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  Early  Antiquity        23 

conquering  dynasty  championed  and  established 
by  the  priests,  the  theory  was  introduced  and  suc- 
cessfully promulgated  that  the  reigning  king  was 
the  literal  and  physical  Son  of  Re.  This  "state 
fiction,"  as  Prof.  Breasted  calls  it,  had  a  long 
and  interesting  history.^^  It  prevailed  without 
question  in  Egypt  until  the  latest  period  of  an- 
tiquity. 

^Breasted,  R.  A.  E.,  II,  pp.  iSyf.    The  full  account  is  given 
here  and  should  be  studied  in  detail. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE    RULER-CULT    IN    THE    MACEDONIAN-GREEK 
PERIOD 

I.    Alexander  the  Great 

THE  theory  that  the  King  of  Egypt  was  the 
son  of  the  sun-god  in  the  literal  sense  was 
in  full  operation  when  Alexander  the  Great  en- 
tered Egypt  as  its  conqueror;  for  he  went  at  once 
to  the  distant  Oasis  of  Amon,  at  Siwa,  in  the 
Lybian  desert,  and  was  there  formally  proclaimed 
Son  of  Re,  or  Amon — hence,  legitimate  ruler  of 
Egypt.  The  story  of  Alexander's  apotheosis  was 
incorporated  into  the  Romance  of  Alexander, 
called  Pseudo-Callisthenes,  which  was  translated 
into  Latin  near  the  end  of  the  third  century  A.D., 
or  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth,  by  Alexander 
Polemius.^- 

There  is  another  line  of  continuity  here,  also. 

^Consult  TeuflFel:  History  of  Roman  Literature  (Eng.  Tr.)., 
Sec.  399;  cf.  also  Maspero:  Comment  Alexandre,  etc.,  Ecole  de 
H antes  Etudes  Annuaire,  1897;  C.  W.  Miller:  Didot  Ed.  Ar- 
rian  sub  Scriptores  Rerum  Alexandri;  Plutarch:  Alex.,  52-55; 
Diog.  Laert.,  v.  1. 

24 


Ruler-Cult  in  the  Macedonian-Greek  Period     25 

In  the  Westcar  papyrus  (2350  B.C.)  the  idea  of 
the  sonship  of  the  Pharaoh  to  the  sun  deity  takes 
the  form  of  a  folk  tale  and,  somewhat  convention- 
alized in  form,  appears  in  sculpture  on  several 
buildings,  notably  at  Luxor  and  Der-el-Bahri.  It 
is  to  be  noted  that  even  at  this  early  date  the 
divine  king  theory  involves  a  combination  of  the 
political  motive  with  the  religious.  Kingship,  ac- 
cording to  this  system,  is  a  divine  institution — 
the  king,  a  divine  being.^^ 

We  have  next  briefly  to  trace  the  continuity  of 
the  Egyptian  divinely-begotten  king  theory 
through  later  history.  It  has  one  early  aberrant 
development  in  the  case  of  Hephaestion,  the 
friend  of  Alexander,  who,  according  to  Diodo- 
rus,^*  was  deified  in  obedience  to  a  specific  com- 
mand of  the  Oracle  of  Amon. 

2.    The  Ptolemies 

In  the  case  of  the  Ptolemies  (330-30  B.C.) 
the  Macedonian  and  Egyptian  traditions  are  thor- 
oughly blended  and  deification  marks  the  entire 
history.     The   only   Ptolemaic  kings    for  whose 

^^  See  below,  page  6i,  n.  io8.  For  the  Westcar  papyrus,  see 
Erman:    Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,  pp.  373f. 

^XVII.  115.  We  shall  note  other  cases  where  the  shadow 
of  divine  royalty,  falling  upon  a  king's  relative  or  favorite, 
seems  to  possess  the  power  to  create  divinity. 


2  6      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

deification  we  have  no  documentary  or  epigraphlc 
evidence  are  the  minor  Individuals  about  whom 
we  know  practically  nothing. 

In  a  text -^  of  the  year  312-311  B.C.  Ptolemy 
I  (Soter  323-283  B.C.)  Is  repeatedly  called  "Son 
of  the  Sun"  In  old  Egyptian  style.  An  Inscription 
of  the  Cyclades  makes  the  claim  that  these  Island- 
ers first  gave  Ptolemy  I  divine  honors.  The 
Rhodlans  (B.C.  306)  advanced  the  same  claim. 
They  first  called  him  Soter  and  established  shrines 
and  sacrifices  in  his  honor.-^ 

In  the  next  reign,  that  of  Ptolemy  II  (Phlladel- 
phus  283-247)  the  process  of  deification  attains 
unexampled  elaboration.-'^  It  should  be  studied 
with  some  care  as  It  throws  light  upon  everything 
that  follows. 

On  the  Mendes  Stele,  Ptolemy  Is  designated: 
"The  lord  of  the  land,  the  lord  of  power,  Merl- 
amon-user-ka-ra,  the  son  of  Re,  begotten  of  his 
body,  who  loves  him,  the  lord  of  diadems,  Pto- 

^  See  Mahaffy:  Greek  Life  and  Thought,  pp.  180-192. 

^®  See  Mahaffy:  History  of  Egypt  under  the  Ptolemaic  Dynasty, 
pp.  43,  44.  Authorities  are  somewhat  at  variance  as  to 
whether  this  deification  was  Greek  or  Oriental.  We  shall  have 
good  reason  to  conclude  that  it  was  both. 

^^The  idea  of  Revillout  (revue  Egyptologique  I,  1880)  that 
genuine  deification  began  with  the  second  Ptolemy  is  untenable 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  had  already  been  in  operation 
for  centuries.  It  was  {sicut  supra)  greatly  elaborated  in  this 
reign.  For  the  meaning  of  "Soter"  see  Mahaffy:  Empire  of 
the  Ptolemies,  p.  62  n3,  cf.  p.  125. 


Ruler-Cult  in  the  Macedonian-Greek  Period     27 

lemy,  the  ever  living."  On  the  same  stone,  Pto- 
lemy's famous  wife,  the  first  woman  of  antiquity, 
so  far  as  I  am  aware,  to  attain  such  honors.  Is 
spoken  of  as  the  "divine  Arsinoe  Philadelphos." 
For  the  sake  of  its  bearing  upon  the  later  history 
of  deification  the  method  of  deification  followed  in 
the  case  of  Ptolemy  and  Arsinoe  should  be  care- 
fully noted : 

On  coins  she  was  deified  with  her  husband — 
the  two  pictured  together  as  gods  and  designated 

She  was  made  officially  avwalos  with  the  accept- 
ed "great  gods"  throughout  Egypt. 

After  death  she  was  granted  a  Kavrjipopos.  .  .  . 
She  was  coupled  on  a  basis  of  equality  with  Ptah, 
as  in  the  expression  (from  a  demotic  stele)  "Sec- 
retary of  Ptah  and  Arsinoe  Philadelphos."  ^^ 

Votive  inscriptions  and  temples  (called  Arsi- 
noeia)  were  dedicated  to  her  in  many  places. 

She  was  made  the  tutelary  goddess  of  the  Nome 
adjacent  to  Lake  Moeris.  I  have  dwelt  at  length 
upon  this  instance  chiefly  for  the  reason  that  the 
operation  of  the  machinery  of  deification  is  so. 
complete  and  typical  at  this  early  date.  Arsinoe 
died  in  270  B.C.  The  bestowment  of  divine  hon- 
ors  including  a   permanent  priesthood,    was    al- 

^*  See  Krall :  Studien,  ii,  p.  48. 


2  8      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

ready  a  finished  art,  leaving  little  room  or  need 
for  subsequent  elaboration. 

The  dynastic  history  of  the  Ptolemies  offers 
a  number  of  facts  full  of  interest  and  suggestion 
from  the  point  of  view  of  this  discussion: 

The  formation,  almost  at  once,  of  a  divine 
dynasty  each  successive  member  of  which  has  a 
birthright  participation  in  deity.  An  inscription 
of  Ptolemy  III  -^  reads  thus:  "The  Great  King, 
Ptolemy,  Son  of  King  Ptolemy  and  Queen  Arsinoe, 
Brother  Gods;  Children  of  King  Ptolemy  and 
Queen  Berenice,  Saviour  Gods;  the  descended  on 
his  father's  side  from  Heracles,  son  of  Zeus,  on 
his  mother's  side  from  Dionysus,  son  of  Zeus," 
etc. 

The  assumption,  immediately  upon  accession 
to  power,  of  a  throne-name  significant  of  deity, 
coronation  and  deification  thus  becoming  coinci- 
dent. An  interesting  and  instructive  side-light  is 
thrown  upon  the  practice  among  the  Ptolemies 
by  this  list  of  throne-names.^*^  Not  the  least  sug- 
gestive item  is  the  evident  fact  that  the  implied 
claim  of  deity  becomes  stronger  as  the  list  goes 

^C.  I.  G.,  5127.  Boeck,  in  his  note  on  C.  I.  G.  2620  (given 
below)  holds  that  these  kings  were  not  deified  during  their  life- 
times, but  more  or  less  promptly  after  death.  In  this  judgment 
I  cannot  concur.  The  evidence  is  all  in  favor  of  the  statement 
in  the  text. 

^"This  list  transliterated  by  F.  Li  Griffith  is  published  by 
Mahaffy:  Egypt  under  the  Ptolemaic  Dynasty,  pp.  255,  256. 


Ruler-Cult  in  the  Macedonian-Greek  Period     29 

on.  The  most  frequently  used  and  most  signifi- 
cant of  the  formal  titles  of  these  rulers,  male  and 
female,  are  Mepykr-qs,  XoiTtip,  'A5eX<^6s.^^ 

In  this  connection  attention  should  be  called  to 
the  Decree  of  Canopus.^^  This  inscription  of 
Ptolemy  III,  which  is  dated  from  the  temple  of 
the  Benefactor  gods  in  Canopus,  speaks  of  Ptol- 
emy, son  of  Ptolemy  and  Arsinoe  BeoL  d5€X06t 
and  Berenice,  his  sister  and  wife,  as  ^'Benefactor 
gods.'' 

The  decree  (which  I  merely  summarize)  in- 
creases preexisting  honors  so  as  to  include  the 
entire  dynasty  under  the  three  titles  given  above. 
It  was  also  voted  to  "perform  everlasting  hon- 
ors" to  Queen  Berenice,  the  deceased  daughter 
of  Ptolemy  and  his  wife.  This  princess  was 
granted  temples,  feasts,  hymns,  offerings  etc.  in 
great  profusion. 

We  have  also  to  note  the  frequent  bestowal  of 
special  divine  names  upon  individual  members  of 
the  dynasty:  e.g.,  Ptolemy  V  (205-181  B.C.),  by 
decree  was  called  Beds  'ETrt^a^Tys  EvxapLaros  and 
he  and  his  wife,  Cleopatra  I,  were  entitled  deot 
kincfyaveis  and  the  latter  appears  on  coins  as  Isis. 


"^The  terra  dde\(p6s  in  the  phrase  Oebt  ide\<p6i  first  ap- 
plied to  Ptolemy  II  and  Arsinoe  implies  a  double  kinship,  in 
lineage,   and  also  in  ruler-ship. 

^*  See  MahaflFy:  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies,  pp.  226f.  and 
Brugsch:  Egypt  and  the  Pharaohs,  p.  io6. 


30     Aspects  of  Roman  Ernperor-W orship 

Ptolemy  IX  (146-117  B.C.),  and  Ptolemy  XIII 
(80-51  B.C.),  each  received  the  title  Neos 
Atoi'uo-os.  ^^  ^^  From  the  inscriptions,  it  is  clear 
that  existing  organizations  of  priests  and  wor- 
shipers were  utilized  for  the  advancement  of  the 
ruler-cult.  This  tendency  is  evident  also  among 
the  Romans. ^^ 

The  marriage  of  the  royal  brothers  and  sisters 
of  this  line,  one  of  the  major  scandals  of  all  his- 
tory, was  based  upon  the  assumption  of  deity  and 
was  intended  to  keep  the  blood  of  the  royal  gods 
pure. 2^ 

We  find  here  a  manifestation  of  the  tendency, 
so  strong  among  the  Romans,  to  link  the  reigning 
dynasty  with  the  Olympian  deities,  either  by  genea- 
logical descent  or  simply  by  common  formulas. ^^ 

The  dramatic  fact  emerges  from  this  history 
that  the  last  member  of  this  proud  dynasty  was 
Caesarion,  Julius  Caesar's  son  by  Cleopatra   (47- 

^^  C.  I.  G.  2620.  This  inscription  from  the  island  of  Cyprus 
which  is  attributed  by  Boeck  to  Ptolemy  IX  ('Eucptctt??  II) 
though  there  is  a  bare  possibility  that  it  belongs  to  Ptolemy  III 
reads  thus:  One  Kallipos  is  spoken  of  as  "  dpxtepeiJovTa  t^s 
TT^XccJS  KOiL  Twv  TTtpl  Aidvvffov  Kai  dtovs  'EvepyeuTS  rexviTWV,"  etc. 

^*  For  the  connection  of  M.  Antony  with  Dionysus  see  Plu- 
tarch: Antony  c.  24.  This  reference  gives  us  a  definite  line 
of  tendency  from  the  Ptolemies  to  the  Romans. 

^Compare  Hirsch.  p.  835.  n.   9. 

'"Maspero:  op.  cit.,  p.  19. 

^  Recur  to  p.  28,  note  29,  and  compare  the  following  inscrip- 
tion to  the  third  Ptolemy,  found  in  a  Greek  temple  at  Ramleh: 
Kdi  Geois  d6€X0o?s  AU  'OXu/uttiwc  koli  AU  Suyw/i(r6itot  rods  fiujfjLOvs, 
etc. 


Ruler-Cult  in  the  Macedonian-Greek  Period     31 

30  B.C.),  who  was  called  Ptolemy  Cassar,  and 
ascended  his  mother's  tottering  throne  as  the  god 
Phllopator  Phllometor.  Here  once  again  we  have 
direct  connection  between  Greece,  the  Orient  and 
Rome.  Caesar's  son  was  deified  In  Egypt  just 
about  the  time  that  Caesar  conquered  Pharnaces 
at  Zela.^^ 

3.     In  Greece 

In  order  to  complete  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  gen- 
eral movement  which  culminated  in  the  deification 
of  the  Roman  Emperors,  we  must  now  retrace 
our  steps  a  little,  chronologically  speaking,  in  or- 
der to  be  in  at  the  beginning  of  things  among  the 
Greeks.  An  actual  beginning  may  be  traceable 
here.  Dr.  SIhler  asserts  ^^  that  according  to  the 
true  and  original  text  there  is  no  actual  deification 
of  men  In  Homer.  In  the  Iliad,  as  the  text  now 
stands,  this  Is  true.  Even  Heracles  is  overcome 
by  fate,  dies  and  departs  to  the  realm  of  the 
shades.  In  the  present  text  of  the  Odyssey,  how- 
ever (Bk.  II,  601  ff.),  Heracles  has  taken  his 
place  among  the  Immortals  and  has  a  goddess  for 
his  wlfe.^° 

^47  B.C. 

^'"T.  A.,  p.  68. 

*°  Ibid.,  p.  69.  Interesting  parallels  to  this  case  are  found  in 
connection  with  Erechtheus,  who  in  Homer  (II.  Bk.  ii,  11.  672-4) 
is  simply  a  buried  hero,  while  in  5th  Cen.  inscriptions  he  is 
assimilated  to  Poseidon — C.  I.  A.:  I,  387;  III,  276,  815;  IV,  556c. 


32      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

Two  things  are  clear  from  this.  First,  that 
some  time  between  the  formation  of  the  original 
Homeric  text  and  the  present  one  the  belief  in 
the  transition  of  mortals  into  the  company  and 
felicity  of  the  gods  has  found  open  expression. 
Second,  the  conception  of  the  hero  who  is,  so 
to  say,  a  superman,  easily  lends  itself  to  the  idea 
of  apotheosis.  The  fundamental  fact  is  that  men 
do  not  need  to  be  magnified  very  greatly  to  bring 
them  over  the  rather  vague  line  which  separates 
them  from  gods.  We  must  agree  with  the  judg- 
ment of  Dr.  Sihler  ^^  that  gods  and  men  are  essen- 
tially the  same,  "apart  from  immortality  and  an 
irrevocable  title  to  happiness."  The  same  scholar 
points  out  ^-  that  the  favor  of  gods  extended  to 
heroes  for  their  character  and  deeds  is  the  begin- 
ning of  hero-worship.  This  latter  cult,  an  en- 
tirely spontaneous  and  popular  movement,  was 
very  widely  disseminated  and  combined  in  various 
ways  with  the  worship  of  the  gods.  This  far- 
reaching  cult  carries  us  already  a  long  way  toward 
deification,  because  historically  it  so  often  involved 
the  junction  of  gods  and  men  in  common  lines  of 
descent. 

cf.  Farnell:  Cults  of  Greek  States,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  49f.  Asclepius, 
who  is  neither  god  nor  hero  in  Homer  (II.  ii,  729-732),  is  Son 
of  Apollo  in  Pausanias  (ii:26),  and  the  Dioscuroi  who  attain 
godhood  between  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  cf.  II.  iii,  236;  Od., 
xi:30o;  see  Wassner:  De  Heroum  apud  Graecos  Cultu,  Pt.  2. 

^  Op.  cit.,  p.  68. 

*"  op.  cit.,  p.  74. 


Ruler 'Cult  in  the  Macedonian-Greek  Period     33 

One  leading  motive  for  the  establishment  and 
spread  of  the  hero-cult  was  the  claim  on  the  part 
of  tribes,  families,  and  leading  Individuals  to  di- 
vine descent.^^ 

Moreover,  it  is  clear  that  gods  and  heroes  not 
infrequently  changed  places — the  hero  rising  to 
godhead  and  receiving  worship  and  the  god  be- 
ing depressed  to  the  hero  level.^^  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  any  essential  distinction  between  gods  and 
heroes  is  done  away  in  the  fact  already  stated 
that  at  least  Heracles  and  the  DIoscuroi  were 
both  heroes  and  gods;  and  that  many  heroes,  at 
a  very  early  date,  had  temples  and  all  the  para- 
phernalia of  worship. ^^  It  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  the  faint  and  wandering  line  of  demarkation 
between  gods  and  men,  on  the  one  hand,  made 
easy  the  process  of  deification  by  removing  or 
minimizing  any  shock  which  might  be  felt  in  ap- 
plying divine  categories  to  beings  otherwise  ob- 

*^  According  to  Dollinger  such  claims  were  urged  even  on 
behalf  of  the  founders  of  trade-guilds  and  industrial  corpo- 
rations.    H.  J.,  Sec.  67. 

^Ibid.,  Sec.  68. 

^'The  gods  and  heroes  were  sometimes  honored  in  conjunc- 
tion; e.g.,  Hermes  and  Heracles,  C.  I.  G.,  Ins.  Mar.  Aeg.,  1091, 
Hermes  and  Minyas,  C.  I.  G.,  Sept.,  3218. 

Sometimes,  apparently  heroes  have  been  constructed  from 
divine  epithets,  viz.,  Kapvetos,  from  Apollo.  See  Farnell :  op. 
cit,  IV,  p.  135;  occasionally  gods  and  heroes  have  been  con- 
fused, ibid.,  p.  151.  For  connection  between  hero-worship  and 
ancestor-worship,  see  below,  p.  46,  note  67.  For  the  universality 
of  hero-worship,  see  Ramsay:  Cities  and  Bishoprics  of  Phrygia, 
I,  p.  384;  for  Heroes  as  Kings;  Harrison:  Prolegomena  to  Study 
of  Greek  Religion,  p.  xiv.     Cf.  Plut.  Cleom.,  xxxix. 


34      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

viously  human.  On  the  other  hand,  it  tended  to 
produce  skepticism  as  to  the  specific  character  of 
the  gods  such  as  we  find  in  Euhemerus  and  Lucre- 
tius. 

Two  items,  before  we  take  up  PhiHp  of  Mace- 
don  and  Alexander  the  Great  again,  deserve 
special  mention.  The  first  is  the  instance  men- 
tioned by  Herodotus, ^^  where  a  Spartan  king  made 
the  charge  that  the  prince  wHo  was  nominally  his 
son  was  actually  the  son  of  the  hero  Astrabakos, 
who  had  become  embodied  and  taken  the  form 
of  the  royal  husband.  This  I  take  to  be  a  distinct 
echo  of  the  Egyptian  theory  or  dogma  which  as- 
cribes a  divine  genesis  to  the  Pharaohs  through 
an  actual  embodiment  of  the  sun-god.  The  sec- 
ond instance  is  that  of  Titus  Quintus  Flamininus 
(sec.  Macedonian  War,  200-197  B.C.),'*'^  to 
whom  the  Chalcidians  dedicated  temples  and  al- 
tars, made  offerings  and  sang  paeans.  In  these 
dedications  and  acclamations,  Flamininus  was 
named  in  company  with  Zeus,  Apollo,  Heracles, 
Roma  and  Fides  Romae.  He  was  called,  In  what 
is  clearly  an  echo  of  the  Egyptian  habit:  "Savior 
Titus"    (ScoTi^p,  etc.). 

We  are  to  note,  again,  the  combination  of  a 
living  deified  Roman  dignitary  with  the  Olympian 

^^6.69. 

*^ Plutarch:    Flamininus  c.  XVI. 


Ruler-Cult  in  the  Macedonian-Greek  Period     35 

deities.  Here  also  we  have  one  of  the  earliest 
appearances  of  the  Roma  cult,  the  expression  of 
a  tendency  which  continued  and  increased  in  later 
times  to  personify  and  deify  the  Roman  state.  It 
is  not  to  be  forgotten  or  under-estimated  that 
these  were  lifetime  honors  bestowed  upon  men 
who  were  not  actually  of  the  blood  royal,  but  who 
possessed  and  exercised,  in  certain  local  jurisdic- 
tions, de  facto  powers  of  royalty.  These  Chal- 
cidians,  moreover,  were  following  an  example  al- 
ready two  centuries  old,  for  the  Spartan  general, 
Lysander,  had  received  almost  identical  honors 
at  the  Hellespont  in  405  B.C.^^  More  directly 
in  line  with  the  historical  movement,  is  the  case 
of  Philip  of  Macedon.  According  to  Pausanias,*^ 
Philip  built  a  temple  at  Olympia  in  which  images 
of  his  dynasty  were  kept.  This  was  in  338  B.C. 
And,  strikingly  enough,  the  king  was  murdered  at 
the  very  time  when,  clothed  in  the  dignity  of  mem- 
bership among  the  Olympians,  he  was  presented 
to  the  people  as  a  god.  This  is  important  because 
it  establishes  the  fact  that  Alexander  had  an  hered- 
itary claim  to  divinity,  established  and  widely  ac- 
knowledged within  the  limits  of  his  father's  do- 
mains, before  he  allowed  himself  to  be  acclaimed 
as  the  son  of  Amon  Re,  in  Egypt. 

*^ Plutarch:     Lysander,  c.   18. 

*®  5. 20.9-10 — see  Sihler,  T.  A.,  p.  124.  .    . 


36     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

We  have  thus  already  discovered  several  lines 
of  communication  through  which  from  primitive 
times  to  the  Roman  era  the  ancient  tradition  of 
deified  men  might  easily  have  been  handed  down. 

4.     Greek-Asiatic  Dynasties 

The  Seleucidae  and  Attilidae,^^  Graeco-Asiatic 
dynasties  of  Antioch  and  Pergamos,  may  be  dis- 
missed with  a  sentence.  The  history  is  quite  paral- 
lel with  that  of  the  Ptolemies.  Seleucus  I  (312- 
281  B.C.)  received  divine  honors  at  least  by  281 
B.C.^i  Antiochus  I  (281-261  B.C.)  was  called 
S£ori7p  and  Antiochus  II  (261-246)  was  called 
Bebs.  Deification,  in  several  instances,  if  not 
always,  was  accomplished  in  the  life-time  of  the 
king.^^ 

"^^  For  Roman  Emperor-Worship  in  Asia  Minor,  see  below,  p. 

79- 

See  Hirsch.  p.  834,  n.  4  for  references. 
"  In  connection  with  Attains  and  Eumenes  we  have  a  group 
of  inscriptions  (C.  I.  G.,  Nos.  3067-3070)  which  show  that 
certain  members  of  the  Association  of  actors  of  Teos,  who 
had  charge  of  public  games  in  general,  were  specifically  ap- 
pointed priests  of  the  ruling  dynasty  and  received  honors  as 
such.  No.  3068  gives  a  good  idea  of  such  inscriptions.  It  re- 
fers to  the  presentation  of  a  crown  in  the  theatre  to  one  who 
has  become  ay  oivodkrris  koll  iepevs  /SacrtXecos  EvfjL^vov,  etc. 
No.  3070  is  still  more  specific  as  to  the  divine  status  of  the  king. 
Attalus  Philadelphus  is  agonothete  and  priest  deov  Evixhov 
6.pL(XTalov.  Others  of  the  same  general  tenor  might  be  cited 
from  later  times. 


CHAPTER    III 

BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  RULER-CULT  AMONG  THE 
ROMANS 

I.     The  Universality  of  Deification  in 
Paganism 

THE  early  development  and  widespread  prev- 
alence of  the  great-man  cult,  to  designate 
it  by  a  term  sufficiently  broad  to  cover  all  the  facts, 
are  not  without  immediate  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion now  before  us — the  beginning  of  this  cult 
among  the  Romans. 

It  is  not  merely  that  we  are  able  to  trace  a  num- 
ber of  interlacing  lines  of  historical  transmission 
from  age  to  age  and  from  land  to  land,  as  indi- 
cated at  the  close  of  the  last  section — in  this  way 
connecting  the  Roman  custom  with  the  outside 
world  and  with  earli&r  times.  These  inter-con- 
nections are  important  enough  but  not  so  impor- 
tant as  a  certain  general  fact  or  principle  which 
we  may  discover  even  where  no  direct  connection 
can  be  detected.  That  principle  is  this:  What- 
ever may  be  the  reason  for  it,  a  matter  to  be  dis- 


38      Aspects  of  Roman  Efnperor-Worship 

cussed  later,  polytheists  exhibit  everywhere  a 
spontaneous  tendency  to  include  great  and  power- 
ful human  personalities  among  the  objects  of  their 
worship.  This  conclusion  is  inevitable  from  the 
facts.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  this  mode 
of  worship  started  from  a  single  centre  and  spread 
to  the  boundaries  of  the  world.  It  has  sprung  up 
spontaneously  everywhere  on  pagan  soil,  because 
it  is  universally  indigenous  to  that  soil. 

2.    Deification  and  Mythology 

This  conclusion  is  of  the  utmost  importance  not 
merely  because  of  the  light  it  throws  upon  the 
origin  of  the  ruler-cult  among  the  Romans,  sig- 
nificant as  it  is  in  that  respect,  but  also  because 
it  really  involves  the  whole  science  of  Comparative 
Mythology. 

The  first  thorough-going  systematizer  of  tradi- 
tional mythology  according  to  a  definite  theory 
rigorously  applied  was  Euhemerus  of  Messana  in 
Sicily  (cir.  300  B.C.) .  This  daring  innovator  held 
that  the  gods  were  merely  deified  men  and  that  the 
mythological  narratives  were  transmuted  history. 

Euhemerus  has  had  comparatively  few  follow- 
ers among  the  scientific  mythologists  of  modern 
times.  Grote,  who  explains  mythology  by  refer- 
ence to  "the  unbounded  tendency  of  the  Homeric 


Beginnings  of  the  Ruler-Cult  Among  Romans     39 

Greeks  to  multiply  fictitious  persons,  and  to  con- 
strue the  phaenomena  which  interested  them  into 
manifestations  of  design,"  ^^  had  no  difficulty  in 
exposing  the  extravagances  and  fictions  of  Euhe- 
merus  and  the  uncritical  methods  of  the  Church 
Fathers  who  followed  him.  What  Grote  and 
other  mythologists  of  the  modem  school  did  not 
do  was  to  discern  the  residuum  of  truth  in  the 
doctrine  of  Euhemerus.  Emphasize,  as  much  as 
one  may,  the  operation  of  the  personifying  ten- 
dency; explain  all  that  can  be  explained  by  false 
etymology,  naturistic  personification  or  folk-lore, 
room  must  always  be  found  for  the  tendency,  as 
spontaneous  and  universal  as  any  other  in  ancient 
and  modern  paganism,  to  deify  human  beings. 
This  is  a  vera  causa  of  mythology.  In  some  cases 
already  cited  and  in  others,  the  process  of  myth- 
spinning  through  deification  can  actually  be  ob- 
served in  actu.  As  Sir  Alfred  Lyall  says:  ^*  "It 
is  a  fact  that  men  are  incessantly  converting  other 
men  into  gods,  or  embodiments  of  gods,  or  emana- 
tions from  the  Divine  Spirit,  all  over  Asia,  and 
that  out  of  the  deified  man  is  visibly  spun  the 
whole  myth  which  envelops  him  as  a  silk-worm  in 
its    cocoon.^'       (Italics    mine.)       In   mythologies 

^History  of  Greece  (Am.  Ed.),  Vol.  i,  p.  342 — see  entire 
chapter. 

^Asiatic  Studies,  London,  1882,  p.  35;  cf.  whole  chapter  (2) 
and  the  same  writer's  Rede  Lecture,  p.  26f. 


40     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

everywhere  deification  undoubtedly  plays  an  im- 
portant part  and  must  be  taken  into  consideration 
in  any  adequate  theory  as  to  their  origin.  The 
entire  body  of  data  presented  in  this  discussion 
may  be  urged  in  support  of  this  particular  con- 
tention, but  the  following  group  of  items,  other- 
wise somewhat  miscellaneous  and  unrelated,  is 
particularly  pertinent.  The  Nusairiyeh  of  North- 
ern Syria,  a  sub-division  of  the  Shiites,  have  deified 
Ali,  the  cousin  and  son-in-law  of  Mohammed,  and 
other  heretical  Moslems  have  done  the  same  with 
Mohammed  himself.^^  It  is  a  particularly  inter- 
esting fact  that  Ali  is  identified  with  one  or 
another  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  constituting  a  rec- 
ognizable fusion  of  naturism  and  deification.  I 
am  convinced  that  this  has  happened  oftener  than 
we  have  been  wont  to  think.  According  to  the 
same  authority  the  Druses  deify  Hakim  Ibn  Allah, 
while  the  natives  around  Mt.  Carmel  deify, 
of  all  persons,  Elijah,  the  stern  monotheistic 
prophet  of  Israel.    Elijah  is  the  god  Khuddr.^^ 

Hopkins  says  of  the  Jains  of  India:  "Their 
only  real  gods  are  their  chiefs  or  teachers  whose 
idols  are  worshiped  in  the  temples.  .  .  .  They 
have  given  up  God  to  worship  man."  ^"^ 

^Curtiss:  Primitwe  Semitic  Religion  To-day   (N.  Y.,  1902), 
pp.  103,  104. 
""Ibid.,  p.  95. 
^''Religions  of  India  (Boston,  1898),  p.  295,  n.  2. 


Beginnings  of  the  Ruler-Cult  Among  Romans     41 

In  Buddhism,  Gautama,  the  Agnostic,  is  deified. 
As  Fairbairn  says:  "Buddhism  deifies  the  denier 
of  the  divine."  ^^  A  large  part  of  the  vast  Bud- 
dhist mythology  grows  out  of  this  primary  deifi- 
cation which  turned  Buddhism  from  a  philosophy 
into  a  religion.  In  China  ^^  the  same  fate  over- 
took Confucius,  whose  negative  attitude  toward 
the  spiritual  world  is  well  known. 

The  comparatively  modern  systems  of  Babism 
and  its  more  recent  supersessive  form  of  Bahaism 
in  Persia  involve  deification  as  their  central  and 
fundamental  principle.^° 

The  significance  of  these  incidents  is  not  only 
that  they  are  undoubted  cases  of  deification  but 
that  these  deifications  are  accompanied  or  fol- 
lowed by  mythologies  more  or  less  extensive,  of 
which  the  deified  person  and  his  deeds  form  the 
substance.  The  statement  is  therefore  justified 
that  paganism  even  where  it  consists  of  decadent 
monotheism  universally  and  spontaneously  pro- 
duces deification.^^ 

'^Phil.  Christian  Religion,  pp.  243,  274f.,  cf.  Monier-Williams 
Buddhism  (N.  Y.,  1889),  Lecture  VIII. 

^°  Legge,  the  greatest  authority  on  the  subject,  holds  that 
Confucius  was  actually  worshiped  in  China, — cf.  Underwood: 
Religions  of  Eastern  Asia,  pp.  i59f.  For  qualification  of  this 
view  consult  Knox:  Development  of  Religion  in  Japan,  p.  173; 
Martin:  Lore  of  Cathay  (N.  Y.,  1901),  pp.  246f. 

'"Speer:  Missions  and  Modern  History,  Vol.  i,  pp.  ii9f. — 
esp.  131,  n.  4.  Wilson:  Bahaism  and  Its  Claims  (N.  Y.,  1915), 
pp.   35f.  with  references. 

®^For  deification  among  Ancient  Celts  consult  MacCulloch: 


42      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 


3.  Deification  Native  to  the  Roman  Genius 

When,  therefore,  we  come  to  the  Romans  the 
presumption  is  that  they  also  will  show  the  same 
tendency  to  deify  men  of  eminence  and  power 
which  is  so  generally  seen  elsewhere.  Hirschfeld  ^^ 
calls  the  worship  of  the  Roman  Emperor  and  the 
royal  house:  "Eine  durchaus  un-Romische  auf 
griechisch  -  orientalischen  Boden  gewachsene 
Pflanze,  die  aber  gleichzeitig  mit  der  neuen  Mon- 
archie  nach  dem  Westen  iibertragen  dort  auffal- 
lend  rasch  sich  acclimatisirt,  tiefe  Wiirzeln  ge- 
schlagen  und  eigenartige  Bliithen  getrieben  hat." 

In  this  judgment  I  cannot  concur.  It  is,  of 
course,  somewhat  difficult  to  say  just  exactly  what 
is  and  what  is  not  strictly  Roman, '^^  since  Roman 

Religion  of  Ancient  Celts  (Edin.,  1911),  pp.  i6if;  Rhys:  Hibhert 
Lectures,  1886  (3d  ed.,  London,  98),  Lecture  VI.  Those  who 
•wish  to  broaden  the  induction  still  further  will  find  abundance 
of  material:  E.g.,  De  La  Saussaye:  Science  of  Religion,  Ch. 
XIV;  Jevons:  Intr.  to  History  of  Religions,  pp.  275^;  W.  Rob- 
ertson Smith:  The  Religion  of  the  Semites,  pp.  42f;  Frazer: 
Golden  Bough,  Part  I,  Vol.  ii,  Ch.  XIV  and  index  sub.  <voc. 
There  is  a  vast  amount  of  data  bearing  on  the  subject  of  divine 
kings  in  this  colossal  work,  but  much  of  the  material  needs 
careful  critical  sifting;  e.g.,  what  Dr.  Frazer  says  of  the  Latin 
kings  is  based  upon  passages  which  are  both  late  and  de- 
cidedly secondary,  while  the  bridge  of  inference  by  which  he 
reaches  antiquity  seems  to  me  precarious  and  unsteady.  Cf. 
Fowler:  R.  E.  R.  P.,  p.  20:  J.  B.  Carter:  Ency.  Religion  and 
Ethics,  Vol.  I,  p.  464,  col.  2. 

"^Op.  Cit.,  p.  833. 

'^  Fowler:  R.  F,,  p.  19,  starts  out  with  the  year  46  B.C.,  "the 
last  year  of  the  pre-Julian  calendar,"  as  affording  a  firm  basis 


Beginnings  of  the  Ruler-Cult  Among  Romans     43 

tradition  and  culture  were  from  the  start  domi- 
nated by  Greek  influence,  and  the  back-flow  from 
Asia  through  Greece  began  so  early.  It  is  also 
obvious  that  the  deification  of  Roman  emperors 
began  only  when  there  were  emperors  to  deify.  It 
is  also  probable,  though  by  no  means  demon- 
strated, that  the  worship  of  living  emperors,  as 
distinguished  from  the  diviy  or  deceased  emperors 
deified,  began  in  the  Asiatic  provinces. 

Nevertheless,  I  venture  to  dispute  the  dictum 
that  the  worship  of  the  ruler  was  a  thoroughly 
un-Roman  growth,  introduced  from  the  Hellen- 
ized  Orient  and  merely  domesticated  among  the 
Romans.®*  In  the  first  place,  it  would  be  difllicult 
to  explain  the  rapid  development  and  the  ultimate 
magnitude  of  this  system  among  the  Romans  were 
there  not  something  in  it  inherently  congenial  to 
Roman  thought  and  temper.  We  are  not  to  for- 
get, in  this  connection,  what  will  be  brought  out  in 
detail  later,  that  nowhere  in  all  antiquity  did  the 

for  the  study  of  Roman  religion  while  it  was  still  Roman. 
By  common  consent  the  Fasti  of  the  original  calendar,  pre- 
served through  the  successive  modifications  which  have  been 
made  in  it,  afford  trustworthy  knowledge  of  the  religion  of  the 
early  Romans  {ibid.,  p.  20). 

**  Fowler  in  his  great  work  on  The  Religious  Experience  of 
the  Roman  People  gives  small  place  to  Emperor-Worship  (see 
PP-  437-8),  on  the  ground  that  in  its  developed  form,  it  belongs 
neither  to  Rome  nor  Italy.  Technically,  he  is  correct,  but  I 
think  he  underestimates  its  importance  within  the  period  with 
which  he  deals;  cf.  Heinen,  op.  cit.,  under  J.  Caesar  and  Au- 
gustus. 


44      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

ruler-cult  reach  such  power  or  attain  so  complete 
an  organization,  inner  and  outer,  as  among  the 
Romans.  All  other  studies  of  this  cult  are  merely 
introductory  and  auxiliary  to  the  supreme  historic 
example  of  organized  and  systematic  deification 
afforded  by  the  Roman  system.  In  this  sense  the 
cult  is  characteristically  Roman. 

In  the  second  place,  there  is  a  sufficiency  of 
positive  evidence  to  show  that  the  process  of  dei- 
fying men  and  of  uniting  gods  and  men  in  common 
life  was  as  nearly  native  as  anything  Roman  ever 
was.  I  adduce,  first,  the  Trojan  cycle,  the  pres- 
entation of  which,  in  one  way  or  another,  forms 
the  staple  of  Roman  literature  from  beginning  to 
end.  The  traditional  founder  of  the  Roman  race 
was  the  son  of  Anchises  and  Venus  Aphrodite. 
iEneas,  therefore,  was  himself  a  demi-god,  a 
divine-human  being  who  is  the  reputed  ancestor 
of  a  great  Roman  family,  the  lulii.  It  is  a  fact, 
the  significance  of  which  can  hardly  be  over-esti- 
mated, that  Julius  Caesar  traced  his  lineage  to 
the  gods.^^  My  point  here  is  that  at  the  time 
when  the  Roman  tradition  was  amalgamated  with 

^  See  next  section.  I  need  hardly  urge  that  the  Hercules 
cycle  and  the  hero-stories  in  general  were  part  and  parcel 
of  the  Roman  literary  tradition.  Hercules,  who  was  prob- 
ably the  first  foreign  deity  to  arrive  at  Rome  antedated  by 
several  centuries  the  beginnings  of  Roman  literature.  For 
the  transformation  of  Mnezs  and  others  into  gods,  etc.,  see 
Ovid:  Metam.,  Bk.  XIV,  11.  512-771. 


Beginnings  of  the  Ruler-Cult  Among  Romans     45 

the  early  Greek,  not  absolutely  primitive  times  so 
far  as  the  Romans  are  concerned,  but  still  very 
early,  the  tendency  which  expresses  itself  in  deifi- 
cation was  already  in  active  operation.  The  im- 
pulse to  claim  kinship  with  the  gods,  to  cross  in 
one  direction  or  the  other  the  line  which  separates 
gods  and  men,  was  in  the  Roman  blood  as  inherit- 
ors of  the  ancient  Greek  tradition. 

But,  I  think  that  we  are  undoubtedly  justified  in 
going  much  further  back  toward  primitive  times 
than  this.  In  fact,  I  am  convinced  that  the  im- 
perial-cult was  rooted  in  the  earliest  stratum  of 
Roman  religion  and  was  fostered  by  several  of 
the  strongest  native  tendencies  of  the  Roman 
mind.  I  shall  try  to  justify  this  assertion.  Among 
the  earliest  beings  worshiped  by  the  Romans, 
even  in  the  period  when  their  gods  were  dimly 
defined  numina,  deified  powers,  functions  or  ac- 
tions of  nature  and  life,  mostly  unnamed  and 
having  no  marked  features  of  individuality,  were 
the  Di  Manes, ^^  or  ^'divi  parentum'^  of  the  Libri 

^  That  the  cult  of  the  Dead  involved  actual  deification  is 
capable  of  very  curious  illustrations.  Pliny  expresses  in  a  well- 
known  passage  (H.  N.,  VII,  188)  his  scornful  dislike  of  the 
Manes-cult  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  makes  use  of  this 
expression:  "sensura  inferis  dando  et  Manis  colendo  deumque 
faciendo  qui  tarn  etiam  homo  esse  desierit."  In  a  very  different 
spirit  but  with  the  same  underlying  idea  of  what  the  practice 
involves  Cicero  approaches  the  subject  of  a  proposed  memorial 
to  his  beloved  daughter  Tullia.  He  says  to  Atticus  (ad  At- 
ticum,  XII,  36)  :  "Fanum"  (a  word  signifying  a  temple  de- 
signed for  the  worship  of  a  god)    fieri  volo,   neque  hoc  mihi 


46      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

Pontificum,^^  the  deified  ancestors  of  the  family; 
the  Genius  patris  familias,  which,  in  early  times, 
has  been  described  as  masculinity  raised  to  god- 
head, in  the  same  sense  as  the  deities  of  the  house- 
hold; the  Lar  compitalis  (afterward  Lar  famili- 
aris)  or  Genius  of  the  common  land  of  the  com- 
munity.^^ Here  within  the  cult  itself,  coming  down 
from  the  earhest  times,  is  the  entire  machinery  of 
deification  which  operates  in  the  case  of  the  em- 
perors. Every  regularly  constituted  family  con- 
sisted of  divine  and  human  members  and  the  line 
of  demarkation  between  the  groups  was  crossed  at 
death.  More  than  that,  the  idealization  as  an 
object  of  worship  of  the  creative  principle  inherent 
in    the    pater-familias    identified    by    the    term 

erui  potest.  Sepulcri  similitudinem  effugere  non  tarn  propter 
poenam  legis  studeo  quam  ut  quam  maxime  adsequar  airodkucnv. 
He  wishes  so  to  place  this  sanctuary  and  so  to  build  it  that 
"so  long  as  Rome  endures  'illud  quasi  consecratum  remanere 
possit.' "  Ibid.,  XII  :i9.  His  whole  idea  is  that  Tullia  is  a 
living  and  glorified  being  as  he  plainly  states  in  a  fragment 
of  his  lost  Consolatio:  "Te  omnium  optimam  doctissimamque, 
approbantibus  dis  immortalibus  ipsis,  in  eorum  coetu  locatam, 
ad  opinionem  omnium  mortalium  consecrabo"  (See  Fowler: 
R.  E.  R.  P.,  p.  388.)  An  idea  of  the  extent  of  the  Manes-cult  is 
given  by  the  number  of  inscriptions  devoted  to  it,  see  C.I.L.X., 

^'^  See  Teuffel— Hfj/.  Rom.  Lit.,  Eng.  tr.,  sec.  73.  One  of  these 
laws  reads  thus:  "Si  parentem  puer  verberit,  ast  olle  ploras- 
sit,  puer  divis  parentum  sacer  esto."  Wassner  holds  and  offers 
convincing  evidence  for  his  thesis  that  hero-worship  is  a  de- 
rivative of  ancestor-worship, — see  De  Heroum  Apud  Graecos 
Cultu,  esp.  pp.  42,  43.  The  same  scholar  works  out  the  con- 
junction of  hero-worship  with  that  of  the  gods. 

"'See  Fowler:  R.  E.  R.  P.,  sub  'voc;  cf.  Marquardt:  Rom. 
Staats.,  iii,  p.  199;  Ovid:  Fasti,  v,  145;  Pliny:  H.  N.,  II,  6:12. 


Beginnings  of  the  Riiler-Cult  Among  Romans     47 

"Genius"  made  him  a  quasi-divine  being  even  in 
his  lifetime.  Moreover,  the  Lar  compitalis  ^^ 
performed  the  same  office  in  the  next  larger  com- 
munity occupying  the  land  and  receiving  support 
from  it  that  the  Genius  pater-familias  performed 
in  the  family.  This  is  evidently  pantheistic  and 
not  polytheistic  in  the  Greek  sense  of  anthropo- 
morphic and  sharply  individualized  deities  ;^^  but 
it  is  no  less  evidently  pantheism  on  the  way  to 
polytheism.  It  may  be  true,  as  Fowler  maintains, 
that  the  Romans  would  never  have  personalized 
or  individualized  their  divine  beings  without  help 
from  the  Greeks  and  that  without  external  influ- 
ences the  portentous  system  of  imperial  deifica- 
tion would  never  have  developed.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  seems  to  me  beyond  question  that  the 
living  germ  of  this  development  was  at  hand 
among  the  Romans,  awaiting  only  a  touch  of 
suggestion,  a  breath  of  Greek  pollen,  so  to  say, 
to  awaken  it  to  full  life.  Aust  does  not  put  it 
too  strongly  when  he  says  that  the  man-cult  of 
Greece  and  the  Orient:  "Fand  zu  Rom  in  dem 
Genien  und  Manen-cult  eine  gewichtige  Stiitze."  "^^ 
The   parallel   between   the    household   divi   and 

"•See  Fowler:  R.  E.  R.  P.,  pp.  157,  8. 

''"For  the  place  of  Lares  corapitales  in  the  emperor-cult,  see 
J.  B.  Carter:  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome,  p.  69;  cf.  C.  I. 
L.  X.,  816;  Dio,  LV,  8.  6-7. 

'^R.  R.,  p.  95;  cf.  Horace:  Odes  IV,  v;  Ovid:  Fasti  V,  145: 
Epist.  II,  1.15. 


48      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

the  Imperatores  dhi,  between  the  Genius  of 
the  pater-famllias  and  the  worshiped  Genius 
of  the  emperor;  between  the  community  Lares 
and  what  Boissieu  calls  the  "Lare  supreme  de  la 
patrie"  ^-  is  too  striking  to  be  merely  accidental. 
It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  either  that  the  beginnings 
of  the  imperial-cult  under  Augustus  are  signifi- 
cantly connected  with  an  attempted  revival  of  the 
ancient  religion  which  brought  into  renewed  prom- 
inence the  worship  of  the  Manes  and  Genii.'^^ 
Into  this  revival  the  Divi  parentiim  of  the  Julian 
house  including  the  Divus  lulius  and  the  Genius 
of  the  living  representative  of  that  house  fitted 
only  too  well.  It  required  but  a  slight  addition 
to  the  ancient  ritual  and  no  violation  of  its  pro- 
visions."^^ As  Aust  says,  the  elevation  both  of 
Julius  and  Augustus  alike  was  due  to  the  glorifica- 
tion of  the  Julian  house  of  the  past.    "Die  Gottes 

^^  This  fact  is  strikingly  exhibited  in  the  inscription.  C.I.L. 
Vol.  VI,  439  onwards.  The  first  group,  439-455  is  dedica- 
tions to  the  imperial  Lares.  The  next  group  closely  associated 
with  the  former  in  place  and  time  belongs  to  Augustus  as 
*Tilius  Divi  lulii."  The  latter  cleverly  dove-tailed  his  family 
and  himself  into  the  revived  worship  of  the  ancient  gods. 

''^  For  the  elasticity  of  the  conception  of  the  Lares  see  Duruy: 
Hist,  of  Rome,  Eng.  tr.,  IV,  p.  164.  Duruy  holds  that  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Divus  was  "wholly  Roman,"  ibid.  So  also  J.  B. 
Carter:  Ancestor  Worship,  in  Enc.  Religion  and  Ethics,  Vol. 
I.  pp.  461-466.     See  Art.  {ut  supra) y  II,  i. 

The  worship  of  the  Lares,  etc.,  was  very  persistent.  The 
Codex  Theodosianus  (XVI. X.  12)  forbids  any  one,  of  any 
rank,  to  worship  even  in  secret:  "larem  igne,  mero  genium, 
penates  odore." 

'^*  See  below,  p.  78. 


Beginnings  of  the  Rider-Cult  Among  Romans     49 

herrllchkelt  der  Vorfahren  umstralte  auch  den 
Sohn  und  Enkel."  ^^  Other  aspects  of  the  devel- 
opment have  roots  in  the  remote  past.  Aust  cites 
an  inscription  which  he  dates  238  B.C.  which 
speaks  of  the  Genius  of  the  Roman  People  and 
also  a  shield  with  an  inscription  which  on  the  face 
of  it  is  ancient:  "Genio  urbis  Romae  sive  mas 
sive  femina."  '^^  Aust  holds  that  this  cult  centred 
In  the  Genius  of  the  Roman  people  was  very  little 
later  "als  verwandte  Gotter  des  Hauses." 

There  is  another  line  of  historic  connection  be- 
tween ancient  and  modern  Rome,  not  quite  so  sig- 
nificant but  yet  intensely  interesting,  which  we  may 
trace  out. 

The  god  Quirinus  was  worshiped  on  the  hill 
which  continued  to  bear  his  name  from  the  earliest 
period  of  the  city-state  as  is  evidenced  by  the 
name-form  and  by  his  appearance  in  the  calendar 
of  Numa  from  which  even  the  earliest  Greek  im- 
portations are  absent.  The  exact  connotation  of 
Quirinus  whether  oak  deity  or  what-not  Is  uncer- 
tain and  of  minor  importance. "^^  What  is  germane 
to  my  purpose,  however,  Is  a  rather  striking  and 
suggestive  series  of  facts — the  first  being  the  an- 

''^  Mon.  Ancyr.,  2.  9.  15-28. 

"  Op.  cit.,  p.  137.  Uncertainty  as  to  the  sex  of  the  deities  was 
characteristic  of  developing  Roman  polytheism  in  the  early 
stages. 

^^  Fowler:  Op.  cit.,  p.  143  n.  60.  Ovid  gives  the  story  of  the 
deification  of  Romulus  as  Quirinus  in  Metam.  Bk.  XIV,  772-828. 


50     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

tlqulty  of  the  worship  of  Quirlnus  as  a  part  of  the 
genuine  Roman  cult. 

The  second  fact  Is  that  In  the  course  of  time 
Quirlnus  becomes  Identified  with  Mars.  This 
blending  or  pantheistic  Identification  Is,  as  usual, 
the  result  of  a  clash  of  cults,  one  local,  the  other 
an  exotic.  In  this  case,  from  a  wider  field  In  Italy — 
and  the  attempt  to  save  the  local  cult  from  being 
obscured  and  overthrown.  It  failed  to  work,  for, 
as  Fowler  says:  "Quirlnus  never  became  like 
Mars,  an  Important  property  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple, but  was  speedily  obscured  and  only  revived 
by  the  legend  of  late  origin  which  identified  him 
with  Romulus.^'  It  Is  this  last  Italicized  remark 
with  which  I  am  particularly  concerned.  The 
identification  of  Romulus  with  Mars-Quirinus  is 
not  only  interesting  In  itself  but  suggests  another 
line  opening  out  of  the  primitive  past. 

According  to  Preller,  Romulus  and  Remus  were 
the  Lares  of  the  "old  town"  on  the  Palatine.  By 
others  Romulus  is  looked  upon  as  an  eponym 
and  the  Romulus  cycle  of  stories  as  a  group  of 
aetiological  myths. "^^  It  matters  little  which  view 
one  takes  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Romulus  story, — 
he  is  undeniably  the  Roman  race-hero,  par  excel- 
lence.   The  identification  of  Romulus  with  Mars 

"  Duruy,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  Romulus  a  legendary  hero. 
See  Hist.  Rome,  Eng.  tr.  i,  p.  141. 


Beginnings  of  the  Ruler-Cult  Among  Romans     5 1 

Is  a  striking  Instance  of  the  strong  tendency  among 
the  Romans  to  historicize  their  myths.  To  quote 
Fowler  again:  "The  race-hero  and  the  race-god 
have  almost  a  mythical  identity."  ^^  This  tendency, 
which  is  almost  strong  enough  to  be  called  a  pre- 
vailing trait,  appears  again  and  again  as  a  forma- 
tive factor  in  the  deification  process. ^^  An  exam- 
ple of  this  lies  immediately  at  hand.  In  the  year 
45  B.C.,  just  after  the  decisive  battle  of  Munda  in 
Spain,  the  Roman  Senate  erected  a  statue  to 
Julius  Cassar  in  the  temple  of  Mars-Quirinus- 
Romulus,  inscribed  "Deo  Invicto."  ^^  From  Mars 
to  Caesar  through  Romulus,  a  curious  but  quite 
characteristic  blending  of  the  mythological  and 
the  historical,  there  is  a  single,  logical  movement. 
I  adduce  further,  as  particularly  suggestive  evi- 
dence in  the  same  line,  the  case  of  M.  Marius 
Gratidianus  (cir.  85-84  B.C.),  a  cousin  of  the 
elder  Cicero  and  a  praetor.  Of  him  Seneca  ^^ 
says:  "M.  Mario  cui  vicatim  populus  statuas 
posuerat,  cui  ture  ac  vino  supplicabat,"  etc.  Here 
is  an  entirely  spontaneous  act  of  deification,  as 
Indicated  by  the  bestowment  of  technically  divine 

"/?.  F.,  p.  37,  n.  3. 

^^  See  below,  p.  113. 

^This  event  gave  rise  to  one  of  the  bitterest  of  all  the  bitter 
remarks  of  Cicero — see  Ad  Atticum,  13:28  and  cf.  Sihler: 
C.  of  A.,  p.  368.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  "Deus  Invictus"  is  a 
title  both  of  Hercules  and  Mithra.     See  below,  p.   122. 

^'De  Ira,  III,  18.  i,  cf.  Cic.  de  Oratore  I.  39. 


52      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

honors,  on  the  part  of  the  populace,  who  proclaim 
and  worship  their  leader  (in  this  case,  literally, 
an  idol)  while  he  is  still  alive.  It  was  an  entirely- 
native  impulse,  just  as  distinctively  Roman  as  any- 
thing else  the  Roman  people  ever  did.  No  evi- 
dence of  Asiatic  influence  is  at  hand  and  no  sug- 
gestion reaches  us  that  any  outside  influence  was 
necessary.  Any  person  who  touched  the  popular 
Imagination  or  kindled  Its  emotions  was  likely  to 
evoke  that  adulatory  impulse  which  so  readily 
passed  among  polytheists  into  the  language  and 
actions  of  worship. ^^ 

^'This  tendency  may  be  seen  even  in  Lucretius  whose  venera- 
tion for  Epicurus  is  almost  a  religion — e.g.,  Bk.  V,  8f. ;  "Dicen- 
dum  est,  deus  ille  fuit,  deus,  inclyte  Memmi,  qui  princeps 
vitae  rationem   invenit,"  etc. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    RULER-CULT   AND   JULIUS   C^SAR 
L       C^SAR   AND  THE    DiVI 

I  HAVE  already  touched  upon  the  relationship 
of  Julius  Caesar  to  the  development  of  the 
ruler-cult.  Dr.  Wissowa  holds  ^^  that  since 
Caesar  did  not  actually  reign  as  emperor  he  did 
not  by  right  belong  in  the  circle  of  the  divi,  but 
was  brought  in  by  the  personal  action  and  influence 
of  Augustus.  This  is  an  academic  judgment  which 
I  consider  very  nearly  an  absolute  inversion  of 
the  facts.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  quite  evident  that 
Caesar  was  not  only  the  first  of  the  divi,  after 
Romulus  who  belonged  to  the  distant  and  legend- 
ary past,  but  the  actual  founder  of  the  new  order 
in  such  a  way  that  the  entire  cult  rests  upon  him, 
the  first  well-known,  unquestionably  historic  per- 
son upon  whom  was  conferred  the  public  and  offi- 
cial title  of  divus.^^  In  support  of  this  conclusion, 
I  adduce  first,  the  numerous  inscriptions  which 

"  See  H.  K.  A.,  Vol.  IV,  p.  71. 

^  See  above,  p.  45,  for  early  use  of  divus. 

53 


54      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

refer  to  Augustus  as  the  son  of  the  deified  Julius. ^^ 
The  earliest  of  these  which  I  am  able  to  date  with 
certainty  belongs  to  the  year  1 1  B.C.  and  is  dedi- 
cated to  Augustus  as  the  son  of  Julius  Caesar.^^ 

It  is  important  in  other  respects  inasmuch  as  it 
shows  the  growing  dynastic  consciousness  of  the 
followers  and  admirers  of  Augustus  and  is  given 
here  entire  as  typical  of  these  countless  dedicatory 
inscriptions  which  are  so  important  for  an  under- 
standing of  the  history  of  the  ruler-cult.^^  Many 
others  of  the  same  tenor,  dated  both  before  and 
after  the  death  of  Augustus,  might  be  adduced.  In 
other  words,  Julius  Cassar  was  looked  upon  as 
the  first  and  determinative  member  of  the  new 
divi.     From  him  even  Augustus  takes  his  title. 

2.     The  Divine  Ancestry  of  C^sar 

The  reason  for  this  primacy  of  Caesar  in  the 
establishment  of  the  order  of  the  imperatores  divi 

^  C.  I.  L.,  X  (verified,  the  index  list  is  incorrect),  404,  795, 
805,  931,  3827,  4637,  4857,  5169,  6903,  6914,  6917,  7458,  8035;  cf. 
Aust:  R.  R.,  p.  95;  Heinen:  Klio,  1911,  Vol.  II,  p.  167;  C.  I.  L., 
I,  p.  50.  S.  I.  G.,  I,',  558,  n354  (this  last  may  go  back  to  17 
B.C.).     These  represent  many  localities  of  Italy. 

*^  C.  I.  L.,  XII,  4333.  The  inscription  belongs  to  Narbo  in 
Gallia  Narbonensis: 

Numini  Augusti  Votum, 
Caesaris    Divi    F(ilios)    Augusto, 

Coniugi  liberis  gentique. 
Ad  supplicandum  Numini  Eius. 
^  See  below,  p.  75. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Julius  Casar         55 

to  which,  technically  speaking,  he  did  not  belong, 
since  he  was  never  formally  emperor,  is  based 
upon  certain  important  facts  in  his  career.  First, 
we  must  not  forget  that  he  derived  his  ancestry 
from  Ascanius  lulus,  the  son  of  iEneas,  the  grand- 
son of  Anchises  and  Venus  Aphrodite.  To  Caesar, 
therefore,  the  goddess  was  always  Venus  Genetrix, 
not  merely  in  the  general  sense*^  but  in  a  pecul- 
iarly intimate  and  personal  sense.  In  the  year 
of  his  triumph  (44  B.C.)  he  dedicated  in  the  beau- 
tiful Julian  Forum  a  templum  Veneris  Genetricis, 
in  honor  of  his  ancestress.  The  effect  of  this  idea 
regarding  his  divine  ancestry  upon  the  mind  of 
Caesar  may  be  seen  in  the  eulogy  in  honor  of  his 
deceased  Aunt  Julia,  which  he  delivered  long  be- 
fore the  dedication  of  the  temple,  in  68-67  B.C.  im- 
mediately after  his  entrance  into  the  Senate.  In 
that  address  he  says :  "Amitae  meae  luliae  mater- 
num  genus  ab  regibus  ortum,  paternum  cum  diis  im- 
mortalibus  conjunctum  est.  Nam  ab  Anco  Marcio 
sunt  Marcii  Reges,  quo  nomine  fuit  mater;  a  Ve- 
nere  lulii,  cuius  gentis  familia  est  nostra.  Est 
ergo  In  genere  et  sanctitas  regum,  qui  plurimum 
Inter  homines  poUent,  et  caeremonia  deorum,  quo- 
rum ipsi  in  potestate  sunt  reges."  ^^    It  would  seem 

''C/.  Lucretius:  De  Rerum  Natura  Bk.  I,  1-24.  Lucretius 
begins  his  poem  with  an  invocation  to  Venus  as  "Genetrix 
Aeneadum." 

'"  Suet.    D.  L,  VI  and  LXXVI.    See  below,  p.  81. 


S6     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

that  to  a  man  who  could  soberly  make  this  claim, 
the  forms  or  titles  of  imperial  distinction  could 
add  very  little. 

3.     Divine  Honors  of  C^sar  During  His 
Lifetime 

Suetonius  affirms  ^^  that  many  people  thought 
that  during  his  lifetime,  Caesar  accepted  excessive 
honors — "ampliora  etiam  humano  fastigio  decerni 
sibi  passus  est."  He  specifies  "sedem  auream  in 
curia,  et  pro  tribunali,  tensam  et  ferculum  circensi 
pompa,  templa,  aras,  simulacra  iuxta  deos,  pul- 
vinar,  flaminem,  lupercos,  appellationem  mensis 
e  suo  nomine;  ac  nullos  non  honores  ad  libidinem 
cepit  et  dedit."  This  enumeration  of  honors  in- 
cludes an  assigned  position  for  his  statue  ^-  among 
the  gods  both  in  processions  ^^  and  in  the  temples. 
Mommsen  bases  his  statement  ^*  as  to  Csesar's 
personal  attitude  to  his  own  divinity  upon  Sue- 

"'D.  I.,  LXXVI.  Cf.  C.  I.  L.,  X,  1271,  cut  in  very  large  and 
beautiful  characters.  It  is  addressed  to  M.  Salvius:  "Decurion 
by  benefit  of  the  god  Caesar."  The  inscription  is  from  Nola 
and  seems  to  belong  to  the  dictatorship  of  Caesar. 

®^  Suetonius  uses  the  word  simulacrum  which  corresponds, 
of  course,  to  the  Greek  ayaXna,  a  statue  designed  for  worship. 
Dio  (44.4)  uses  the  word  avdptas  which  does  not  necessarily 
mean  a  statue  intended  for  worship. 

*^  According  to  Suetonius,  Cassar  had  a  iensa,  or  chariot,  in 
which  a  divine  image  was  carried  in  public  processions.  He 
specifies  also  ferculus,  which  is  a  litter  for  the  same  purpose. 

^*  Staats.,  2.2,  p.  755. 


The  Rider-Cult  and  Julius  Casar         57 

tonius.  The  conclusion  that  Caesar  favored  his 
own  deification  has  been  questioned,  but  it  seems 
to  me  the  evidence  indicates  that  he  went  rather 
far.  At  any  rate,  epigraphic  evidence  for  the  dei- 
fication of  Caesar  at  the  time  of  his  pro-consul- 
ship in  Bithynia  can  be  cited.^^  Hirschfeld  main- 
tains that  the  deification  of  proconsuls  was  a  cus- 
tomary and  accepted  procedure.  Pompey  and  An- 
tony were  so  honored  as  well  as  Caesar.^^  It  is 
interesting  to  note,  and  may  go  down  on  the  credit 
side  of  Cicero's  career  that  he  was  offered  honors 
like  these  and  refused  them,  partly  on  the  ground 
that  they  rightly  belonged  to  the  gods  and  the 
Roman  people. ^^  He  says:  "Ob  haec  beneficia 
quibus  illi  obstupescunt  nullos  honores  mihi  nisi 
verborum  decerni  sino :  statuas,  f  ana,  redpnnra,  ^^ 
prohibeo,"  etc. 

®®An  Ephesian  inscription  (C.  I.  G.  2957)  of  the  year  48-47 
B.C.  speaks  of  Caesar  in  a  way  that  is  strongly  reminiscent  of 
Egypt  and  the  Ptolemies  as:  t6v  Apecos  /cat  ' A<{)po8el-T7]s  debv 
kTrL(f>avV  KOLL  Koivbv  ToO  avdpoiTTLvov  ^Lod  aoiTTJpa.  Of  like 
tenor  are  C.  I.  G.,  2369,  22i4g,  2215,  2957  and  C.  I.  A., 
Ill  428.  Hirschfeld  {op.  cit.,  p.  836,  note  19)  refutes  the  con- 
tention of  Boeck,  who  is  strangely  reluctant  to  believe  that 
anybody  could  accept  divine  honors  for  himself  in  his  own 
life-time,  that  these  inscriptions  were  not  addressed  to  the  liv- 
ing Caesar.  In  29  B.C.  Caesar  was  honored  as  a  hero  under 
the  title  of  Men  or  Sabazios,  an  Anatolian  deity  at  Nikaia. 
See  Pliny,  H.  N.,  VIII,  155. 

^^  See  page  34  for  case  of  Flamininus. 

®^Ad  Atticum,  5.21.7;  cf.  Ad  Quintum  Fr.,  1.1.26. 

®^  Chariots  for  statues  equivalent  to  tensae. 


58      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

4.      C^SAR  AS   Divus 

Upon  the  death  of  Caesar,  he  was  promptly 
voted  both  divine  and  human  honors  by  the  Sen- 
ate. According  to  Suetonius  ^^  he  was  deified  not 
merely  by  the  mouth  of  those  making  a  formal  de- 
cree "sed  in  persuaslone  volgl."  The  games  in 
celebration  of  his  apotheosis  were  marked  by 
celestial  omens.  "Stella  crinlta  per  septem  con- 
tlnuos  dies  fulsit,"  which  was  believed  to  be  the 
soul  of  Caesar  received  into  heaven.^^^ 

Dio's  list^^^  of  posthumous  divine  honors  be- 
stowed upon  Caesar,  which  contains  a  rather  por- 
tentous number  of  items,  is  very  Interesting.  Out 
of  the  total  which  I  have  numbered  from  one  to 
eleven,  a  few  deserve  special  mention.  His  acts 
were  made  perpetually  binding,  the  place  and  day 
of  his  assassination  were  both  made  accursed;  his 
Image  was  not  to  be  carried  at  the  funerals  of  his 
relatives  Kadairep  deov  tlvos  cos  aXrjdcos  but  was  to 
be  carried  together  with  a  special  image  of  Venus 
at  horse  races;  no  one  taking  refuge  in  his  shrine, 
which  was  formally  set  apart  as  to  a  god,  could  be 
banished  or  stripped  of  goods,  owep  ovdevl  ovde  tcov 
deoiv  irXriv  rccv  eirl  Po/ioXou  yevojJLevccv. 

""  D.  I.,  LXXXVIII. 

""For  Julian  games  cf.  C.  I.  L.,  I,  p.  293;  cf.  Beurlier:  Culte, 
Sec.  55f. 
^"'Bk.  XLVII,   18,   19. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Julius  Casar         59 

It  is  quite  evident  from  Dio's  presentation  of 
the  ceremonial  and  other  official  acts,  which  are 
typical  of  the  whole  scheme  of  deification  on  its 
mechanical  side,  that  the  process  was  carried  out 
in  strict  accord  with  Roman  customs  and  with  the 
deliberate  intention  of  making  every  item  count. 

The  contention  of  Wissowa,  already  alluded  to, 
is  sufficiently  disposed  of  by  the  fact  that  Caesar 
was  deified  by  the  only  authority  capable  of  doing 
it,  that  is,  the  Roman  Senate,  and  in  the  regular 
and  accepted  mode.  It  is  also  clear  that  in  the 
dedication  of  a  temple  (45  B.C.)  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  priesthood  to  perform  the  rites  belong- 
ing to  the  new  cult,  Augustus  followed — but  did 
not  lead — the  Senate  and  the  Roman  people  in 
their  acknowledgment  of  the  divinity  of  the  great 
Gaius.  Augustus,  however,  was  a  devoted  ad- 
herent of  the  new  cult. 

Velleius  Paterculus  (A.D.  30  flor.)  in  a  very 
characteristic  passage,^^^  said  of  Augustus:  *'Sa- 
cravit  parentem  suum  Caesar  non  imperio  sed  re- 
ligione,  non  appellavit  eum,  sed  fecit  deum.'^  This 
last  clause  should  be  interpreted  by  emphasis: 
"he  not  merely  called  him  but  made  him  god." 

Valerius  Maximus  ^^^  ironically  acknowledges 
the  good  offices  of  Caesar's  assassins  in  procuring 


^"'I.VIiis.V.M.  wrote  under  Tiberius. 


6o     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

his  exaltation.  In  an  address  to  Cassar  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  divine  honors,  including  altars, 
temples,  priests  and  ritual  which  were  bestowed 
upon  him,  he  says  finally:  "erupit  deinde  eorum 
parracidium,  qui,  dum  te  hominum  numero  subtra- 
here  volunt,  deorum  concilio  adiecerunt."  In  this 
connection  a  poetic  touch  is  given  to  the  Caesarean 
cult  by  the  fact,  which  Plutarch  records, ^^^  that 
Antony  was  pleased  to  be  appointed  a  priest  of 
Caesar. 

5.    The  Julian  Cult 

The  extent  and  character  of  the  Julian  cult 
may  be  seen  from  a  few  selected  inscriptions.  A 
marble  inscription  ^^^  belonging  to  the  pre-Augus- 
tan  age  (cir.  43  B.C.)  now  in  the  museum  of  the 
Vatican  at  Rome,  reads : 

Divo  lulio  lussu 

Populi  Romani 

Statutum  est  Lege 

Rufrena 

^•^  Antony,  33.  The  words  are  worth  recording:  kvros  5e 
Ka^crapi  Xapifo^eyos  tkpevs  awedelxdv  toO  irporepov  Kalcrapos.  Ci- 
cero (2d  Phil.  43.110)  points  the  finger  of  scorn  at  Antony  for 
his  delay  in  playing  the  role  of  Julian  priest:  "Et  tu  in 
Caesaris  memoria  diligens?  tu  ilium  amas  mortuum?  quern  is 
majorem  honorem  consecutus  erat,  quam  ut  haberet  pulvinar, 
simulacrum,  fastigium,  flaminem?  Est  ergo,  flamen,  ut  lovi, 
ut  Marti,  ut  Quirino  sic  divo  lulio  M.  Antonius?  Quid  igitur 
cessas?"  etc.  In  the  same  connection  Cicero  expresses  his  dis- 
like of  the  whole  proceeding. 

"'C.  I.  L.,  IX,  2628. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Julius  Casar         6i 

Another    most    suggestive    inscription  ^^^    comes 
from  iEsernia : 

Genio  ^^^  Deivi  luli 

Parentis  Patriae 

Quem  Senatus 

Populusque 

Romanus  in 

Deorum  Numerum 

Rettulit  i<^8 

A  rather  startling  inscription  comes  from  Athens, 
which  specifically  calls  Caesar,  god.^^^ 

The  extent  of  the  cult  may  be  inferred  from  the 
fact  that  in  a  group  of  three  inscriptions  recording 
flamens  or  sacerdotes  of  Caesar,  one  is  from 
Terventum  of  Regio  4  in  Rome,^^^  one  from 
Reii  ^^^  in  Narbonensian  Gaul,  and  one  from 
Rusicade  ^^-  in  Numidia. 

"« c.  I.  L.,  I,  626. 

^*"  On  the  the  use  of  genio  in  this  inscription  see  below,  page 
68. 

^"^  Particular  attention  should  be  called  to  this  word.  It  sig- 
nifies that  Caesar  belongs  inherently  to  the  company  of  the 
gods,  to  which  he  is  restored  at  death.  Cf.  Velleius  Paterculus, 
2.124  "post  redditum  caelo  patrem  et  corpus  eius  humanis 
honoribus,  numen  divinis  honoratum,"  etc.  (Written  under 
Tiberius.)  The  reference  in  "patrem,"  etc.,  is,  of  course,  to 
Augustus.  The  word  "Numen"  is  used  exactly  as  in  ordinary 
references  to  the  gods).     And  see  below,  p.  lOo. 

^^  C.  I.  A.,  65  virb  Faiou'louXtou  Kato-apos  deov. 

"°C.  I.  L.,  IX,  2598. 

'"  C.  I.  L.,  XII,  370. 

"'  C.  I.  L.,  VIII,  7986. 


62      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

Taken  all  In  all,  the  Imperial  cult  Is  In  full 
swing  upon  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar  and  the 
accession  of  Augustus. 

6.    The  Worship  of  Roma 

At  this  point,  I  am  compelled  to  go  somewhat 
aside  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  a  very  Impor- 
tant unattached  thread  In  this  development.  I 
refer  to  the  Roma-cult,  which  Is  closely  united  with 
the  ruler-cult,  and  formed  a  sort  of  Intermediate 
link  between  the  new  personalism  and  the  old 
Olympian  system  of  personified  nature-powers. 

The  glorification  of  Rome  under  the  title  of  the 
goddess  Roma,  began,  according  to  Hlrschfeld,^^^ 
Immediately  after  the  entrance  of  the  Romans  Into 
Asiatic  affairs.  According  to  their  own  claim,  this 
cult  was  founded  by  the  City  of  Smyrna,  whose 
inhabitants  boasted  that  "when  Carthage  yet  stood 
and  mighty  kings  ruled  in  Asia,"  ^^*  they  had 
erected  the  first  temple  to  Roma.  HIrschfeld 
points  out  that  Rome  had  thus  become  the  tutelary 
goddess  of  Smyrna. 

This  side-development  Is  especially  important 
because  It  exhibits  the  elasticity  of  the  polytheistic 
creed  which  was  continually  expanding  to  admit 

'''op.  cit.,  p.  835. 

"* Tacitus:  Annates,  4:56. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Julius  Casar         63 

new  members  and  also  the  operation  of  the  polit- 
ical factor  which  contributed  so  largely  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  emperors  to  the  position  of 
divine  preeminence.  The  Roma-cult  is  Interlocked 
from  the  beginning  with  the  imperial.  There  were 
temples  of  Dea  Roma  and  Divus  lullus  for  Roman 
citizens  at  Ephesus  and  Nicaea  and  probably  else- 
where. The  worship  of  Roma  was  connected  with 
that  of  the  AugustI  almost  uni  vers  ally.  ^^^ 

"°  See  C.  I.  G.,  3524,  2696,  2943,  478  (Roma  and  Aug.  in  four 
cities  incl.  Athens),  and  below,  pp.  yif.  On  the  Roma-cult  in 
general,  consult  Wissowa,  H.  K.  A.,  p.  283  and  Preller:  Rom. 
Myth.,  pp.  283f. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE  RULER-CULT  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  AUGUSTUS 

I.    Life-Time  Worship  of  the  Emperors 

WE  are  now  fairly  embarked  upon  the  im- 
perial era,  which  I  have  divided  into  two 
sections,  about  equally  balanced  in  importance; 
the  era  of  Augustus,  and  that  of  the  successors  of 
Augustus.  The  Augustan  age  itself  stands  out  as 
the  period  during  which  the  imperial  cult  was 
organized,  established,  endowed  with  institutional 
machinery  and  generally  put  on  a  permanent  and 
self-perpetuating  basis. 

The  question  which  occupies  first  place  in  all 
critical  discussions  of  the  emperor  cult  among  the 
Romans  is  this:  Were  the  emperors  worshiped 
by  the  Romans  of  Italy  during  their  life-times  or 
only  after  death?  That  they  received  divine  hon- 
ors in  the  Eastern  provinces  while  still  alive  is 
abundantly  proved. 

The  other  point,  which  is  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance for  an  understanding  of  the  relationship  of 
the  cult  to  the  history  of  Roman  religion,  is  still 

64 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  the  Reign  of  Augustus     6^ 

sub  judice.    We  may  as  well  take  up  the  matter 
now. 

Let  us  begin  with  Tacitus.  This  historian 
says  ^^^  that  he  found  in  the  records  of  the  Senate 
an  entry  showing  that  a  certain  Cerealis  Anicius 
moved  the  erection  of  a  temple  Neroni  Divo,  on 
the  ground  that  Nero  had  attained  to  more  than 
human  power.  This  honor  though  unusual  was 
refused  solely  because  the  action  was  thought  to 
be  ominous  of  the  emperor's  death, — "nam,"  says 
Tacitus,  "deum  honor  principi  non  ante  habetur, 
quam  agere  inter  homines  desierit."  The  question 
at  once  arises  whether  this  rule,  as  Tacitus  states 
it,  was  kept.  Formally,  by  the  Senate,  perhaps  it 
was,  but  actually  it  was  not.  Take,  for  example, 
the  paean  sung  to  Nero  himself  at  Rome  on  the 
occasion  of  his  triumph,  A.D.  68.  He  was  called: 
"Olympian  Victor,  Pythian  Victor,  Augustus,  Her- 
cules, Apollo,"  etc.  He  was  also  acclaimed:  "Our 
National  Victor,  the  only  one  from  the  beginning 
of  time"  and  "Augustus,  Augustus,  Divine  Voice, 
Blessed  are  they  that  hear  thee  I"  ^^^  This  repre- 
sents and  expresses  the  flattery  of  an  excited  and 
servile  populace,  and  there  are  not  wanting  indi- 
cations that  the  enthusiasm  was  officially  and  arti- 
ficially stimulated,  but  the  point  is  that  public  adu- 

^^^  Annales,  15:74. 
"'Dio,  63.20.3. 


66      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

lation  so  constantly  takes  the  form  of  deification.^^^ 
Wissowa  ^^^  flatly  affirms  that  Augustus  was  wor- 
shiped as  god  during  his  life-time,  both  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West.  From  that  time  on,  he 
holds,  until  Diocletian,  the  rule  was,  the  divus 
received  divine  honors  together  with  the  Genius  of 
the  living  emperor  which  included  the  adoration 
of  the  imperial  statue.  This  statue  cult  was  com- 
bined with  the  worship  of  the  Lares. ^-^ 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  worship  of  the  Genius, 
or  hypostatized  spirit  or  divine  alter  ego,  of  the 
emperor  was  a  very  frail  barrier  indeed  against 
personal  worship — it  could  scarcely  be  called  more 
than  a  convention — while  the  adoration  of  the  im- 
perial statue  became  a  system  of  down-right  idol- 
atry. Moreover,  the  rules,  whatever  they  may 
have  been,  were  broken  absolutely  in  the  instances 
of  Caligula  and  Domitian.^-^ 

Hirschfeld  holds  ^^-  that  Augustus,  in  his  life- 
time, received  divine  honors  throughout  the  em- 
pire, but  that  the  cult  was  not  so  systematic  or  well 

"^Dio  says  (63.2,  5)  that  Tiridates  offered  victims  before 
the  altar  of  Nero  and  addressed  him  as  "Dominus" — AecrTro'rTjj — 
and  also  as  Mithra. 

"'O/*.  cit.,  p.  72. 

^  C.  I.  L,,  VI,  307.  Sergius  Megalensis  is  spoken  of  as  Cul- 
tor  Larum  et  Imaginum  Augusti.  Under  date  56  A.D.  (Fynes- 
Clinton)  we  have  an  entry  which  identifies  the  Augustales  "qui 
Neroni  C.C.  Augusto  et  Agrippinae  Aug.  .  .  .  et  genio  coloniae 
ludos  fecerunt." 

^'^  See  below,   pp.  94ff. 

'^0/>.  cit.,  p.  838. 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  the  Reign  of  Augustus     67 

organized  In  the  West,  as  shown  by  the  scattered 
epigraphic  remains.^^"  Dolllnger^^*  maintains 
that  until  Caligula  it  was  understood  at  Rome  that 
the  emperor  by  a  special  decree  of  the  Senate  and 
the  successor  should  be  raised  to  godhood  as 
divus.  This  process  was  analogous  to  the  cult  of 
the  Manes. ^^^  The  same  acute  student  points  out 
two  striking  facts:  (a)  that  divine  honors  were 
pressed  upon  the  emperors,  rather  than  sought  by 
them,^^®  and  (b)  that  the  divus  became  a  new 
god  added  to  the  pantheon,  whereas  the  living 


^^  Heinen  (p.  175,  see  bibliography)  gives  the  following  list 
of  inscriptions  as  indicating  the  priests,  altars  and  temples  of 
the  living  Augustus  in  Italy:  C.I.L.,  V,  18/3341,^4442,^  IX,  1556;* 
X,  816,'^  820,«  837,'  1613,'  5169,'*  630s;"  XI,  1331,"  1420," 
1421,^^  1922,"  1923/'  3303;'"  XIV,  73"  353^'  2964.^''  Of  these 
identifications  of  date  i,  3,  8,  12,  13,  17  seem  probable  but  un- 
certain; 16  seems  obviously  incorrect;  11  belongs  to  the  age  of 
Nero  but  speaks  of  an  Augustan  priesthood  which  by  inference 
H.  carries  back  to  Augustus;  19  depends  upon  a  reading  ques- 
tioned by  Mommsen ;  the  remaining  references  are  beyond  ques- 
tion. Throwing  away  those  which  are  doubtful  we  have  ten 
contemporaneous  inscriptions  from  Italy. 

^H.  J.,  p.  615. 

^  Manes — see  P.  W.,  sub.  voc.  and  above,  pp.  45,  47.  Dill 
(Roman  Society,  etc.,  N.  Y.,  191 1,  pp.  61 5f)  asserts  that  the  be- 
lief in  the  deity  of  the  emperors  "was  long  a  fluctuating  and 
hesitating  creed."  The  evidence  which  he  offers  for  this  hesi- 
tancy concerns  the  attitude  of  the  emperors  toward  their  own 
deification  (see  below,  pp.  94ff).  On  the  side  of  the  people  there 
was  no  hesitation  at  all,  or,  if  there  was,  this  attitude  was  con- 
fined to  a  very  few  who  gave  no  sign  of  their  secret  feeling. 
Dill  is  at  least  verbally  correct  in  saying  that  Domitian  was 
the  first  emperor  who  claimed  the  double  title  "Dominus  et 
Deus"   {cj.  p.  98). 

^^H.  J.,  p.  613.  See  Tac.  Annales,  4:37.  Nero  and  Domitian 
as  well  as  Caligula  must  be  excepted. 


68      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

emperor  was  looked  upon  as  the  incarnation — or 
more  strictly,  the  reappearance  of  some  well- 
known  deity,  as  Dionysus,  Ares,  Zeus,  etc.^^''^ 

Looking  at  the  whole  body  of  evidence,  it  seems 
clear  that  the  facts  are  not  homogeneous.  It  is 
evidently  vain  to  look  for  consistency  in  a  process 
which  has  so  many  cross-currents  of  emotion  and 
self-interest.^-^ 

The  spontaneous  and  popular  character  of  the 
emperor-worship,  and  something  of  its  psychol- 
ogy, I  think,  can  be  seen  in  an  instance  given  by 
Suetonius. ^-^  Sailors  and  passengers  of  an  Alex- 
andrian ship  In  the  bay  of  Puteoli,  when  Augustus 
arrived  there  "candidati  coronatique  et  tura  liban- 
tes  fausta  omina  et  eximias  laudes  congesserant." 
In  their  address  to  the  emperor,  they  said  that 
"per  ilium  se  vivere,  per  ilium  navigare,  libertate 
atque  fortunis  per  ilium  frui."  How  easily  the 
language  of  flattery  passes  Into  that  of  actual 
worship  and  how  readily  the  preeminence  of  the 
emperor  merges  Into  that  of  the  deity  as  a  moun- 
tain-top melts  into  the  blue  of  the  sky! 


^  Op.  cif.,  p.  6i6.  As  an  interesting  side-light  upon  this 
tendency  to  look  for  the  embodiment  of  the  gods,  the  incident 
of  Acts  14:12  should  be  noted. 

^As  examples  of  inconsistency,  the  use  of  di-vus  in  connec- 
tion with  Titus  in  the  oath  formula  (see  below,  p.  100),  and  the 
combination  of  Genius  and  dwus  in  the  inscription  cited  on 
p.  61,  n.  107. 

^Aug.  98. 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  the  Reign  of  Augustus     69 

2.    The  Worship  of  Augustus  and  the  Au- 
gustan Cult 

The  worship  of  Augustus  (B.C.  31-A.D.  14) 
apparently  began  at  Pergamos,  where  the  em- 
peror cult  was  united  with  the  worship  of  Roma 
and  grafted  immediately  into  the  already  estab- 
lished cult  of  the  Attalidas.  The  foundation  of 
the  whole  system  as  afterward  developed  was  thus 
laid  in  the  year  29  B.C.^^^  According  to  Momm- 
sen,^^^  when  Augustus  permitted  divine  honors  to 
be  offered  him  by  the  Diets  of  Asia  and  Bithynia 
*'there  was  blended  for  the  first  time  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  festival  for  the  reigning  emperor  and 
the  imperial  system  in  general."  The  machinery 
of  the  cult  was  very  complete  and  elaborate  from 
the  start.  The  whole  system  of  worship  was  im- 
perialized  just  as  it  stood.  The  Senate  established 
the  Augustalia  or  Augustan  celebrations.^^-  This 
institution  spread  through  the  empire  with  great 
rapidity.^^^ 


""  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  title  "Augustus,"  which 
had  previously  been  confined  to  the  gods,  was  bestowed  upon 
Octavian  two  years  before — B.C.  27,  Mon.  Ancyr.  i.  18.  25. 

"'Romische  Gesch.     Band  V,  Kap.  VIII,  p.  318. 

^^^  Monumentura  Ancyranum,  6:13,  under  date  of  Oct.  12,  735, 
U.  C,  i8  B.C. 

"^Tacitus:  Ann.,  4.  15,  of  the  year  23  B.C.  The  historian 
says:  ''Effigiem  apud  Forum  Augusti  publica  pecunia  patres 
decrevere." 


70      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

In  furtherance  of  the  scheme,  Augustales  ^^^ 
were  appointed  after  the  model  of  the  Mercu- 
rlales.  Sodales  and  cultores,  who  apparently 
were  drawn  from  civil  life  to  further  the  cult, 
were  appointed  in  various  localities. 

The  provincial  high  priests  ^^^  of  Augustus  be- 
came the  eponyms  for  the  year  and  the  chief  func- 
tionaries of  their  provinces.  These  men  bore  the 
expenses  of  the  annual  festivals  and  since  many 
honors  and  privileges  were  connected  with  the 
position  there  was  kleen  rivalry  among  distin- 
guished and  ambitious  men  for  it.  They  were 
named  according  to  the  province,  Asiarch,  Bithyni- 
arch,^^^  etc.  The  dignity  of  these  various  perma- 
nent and  temporary  priestly  functionaries  ^^^  in 
connection  with  the  cult  of  Augustus,   and  indi- 


^^  For  mention  of  Augustales,  C.  I.  L.,  X,  977,  994,  1026, 
1034,  1066.  As  early  as  A.D.  38-41  an  Augustalis  is  found  at 
Avaricum  in  Britain.  See  Revue  Archeol,  Dec,  1879. 

"°  The  first  High-priest  of  Augustus  was  said  to  have  been 
appointed  to  a  temple  on  the  Island  of  Salamis  built  by  Au- 
gustus himself,  see  C.  I.  A.,  Ill,  728.  We  find  inscriptions  for 
Caesarea  or  Imperial  temples  from  Augustus  to  Alexander 
Severus,  C.  I.  L.,  IX,  1556,  Or.-Hen.,  961,  2508,  2509. 

"^  C.  I.  G.,  3487.  The  Municipal  priests  appear  on  the 
coins  of  thirteen  Doric  towns — see  Mionnet:  Description,  etc., 
iii,  61.  I.  C.  I.  L.,  XIV,  p.  367,  col.  2.  Mommsen:  Staatsrecht, 
ir,  sec.  258f. 

"^  There  seems  to  be  no  absolutely  fixed  nomenclature  for  the 
priests  of  Augustus.  I  have  compared  a  large  number  of  in- 
scriptions and  have  been  unable  to  formulate  any  distinctions 
in  the  use  of  flamen,  sacerdos,  or  pontifex.  The  provincial 
high-priest  stood  by  himself.  The  titles,  Augustales,  cultores, 
etc.,  seem  to  have  been  used  without  any  sharp  distinction. 


The  Ruler-Cult  in  the  Reign  of  Augustus     71 

rectly  the  sweep  and  power  of  the  cult  itself,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  statement  of  Tacitus  ^^^  that 
these  new  religious  rites  were  established  and  a 
new  line  of  priests  added  to  the  sacerdotal  col- 
lege, which  was  made  up  primarily  of  twenty-one 
eminent  citizens  drawn  by  lot,  to  whom  were  added 
Tiberius,  Drusus,  Claudius  and  Germanicus.^^^ 

The  spread  of  the  movement  to  glorify  Augus- 
tus which  seems  to  have  swept  both  Italy  and  the 
Provinces  may  also  be  inferred  from  another  state- 
ment made  by  Tacitus, ^'^'^  who  says  with  respect  to 
a  temple  dedicated  to  Augustus  at  Tarraco :  "Pe- 
tentibus  Hispanis  permissum,  datumque  in  omnes 
provincias  exemplum." 

The  first  altar  to  Augustus,  with  Roma,^^^  was 
dedicated  by  Drusus  at  Lugdunum  in  Gaul,  in  the 
year  12  B.C.^^^  Of  the  year  11  we  have  the 
famous  and  significant  inscription  from  the  forum 
at  Narbo.^*^  About  the  same  date,  from  Bae- 
tica  ^^"^  comes  an  inscription  equally  significant  of 
what  is  to  come :    It  is  addressed  to  one  Lucretius 

^^Annales,  1.54. 

^'®Acro  on  Hor.  Sat.,  II,  3.281  says:  "Erant  autem  libertini 
sacerdotes  qui  Augustales  dicebantur." 

^^^  Annates,  1.78. 

^'^  See  below,  p.  90. 

^*^  Mommsen :  Rom.  Gesch.  Band  V,  pp.  85,  89.  Bolssieu: 
Inscript.  de  Lyon,  p.  609.  C.  I.  L,,  II,  4248.  In  this  same  year 
there  was  a  Magister  Augustalis  in  Etruria,  C.  I.  L.,  XI,  3200. 

"^  See  p.  54,  n.  87. 

'"C.  I.  L.,  II,  1663. 


72      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

Fulvlanus,  who  Is  "Pontlfex  Perpetuus  Domus 
Augustae,"  and  to  Lucretia,  who  is  Flamlnlca  per- 
petua,  etc.  From  Scardona  ^^^  we  have  a  dedica- 
tion: 

Sacerdoti  ad  Aram  AugustI, 

From  Praeneste  comes  a  fragment  which  speaks  of 
Cn.  Pompeius  Rusticus  as  "Flamen  Caearis  Augus- 
ti."  At  Nysa,  presumably  belonging  to  the  temple 
of  Roma  and  Augustus  In  that  place/^^  there 
Is  an  inscription  lepeoos  'Pco^rjs  avTOKparopos  He^udTOV 
which  establishes  the  fact  that  the  year  was  named 
from  the  priest  of  Roma  and  Augustus.  An  im- 
portant inscription  ^'^^  from  Auctarlum  In  Gallia 
Narbonensis,  furnishes  the  regulations  governing 
the  feasts  of  Augustus.  Another  type  of  inscrip- 
tion, most  significant  as  Indicating  the  general 
trend,  passes  from  the  combination  of  Augustus 
with  other  gods  to  the  mention  of  Augustus 
alone.^^^  The  tendency  of  the  imperial  cult  to 
supersede  the  Olympian,  and  to  throw  the  older 

"'C.  I.  L.,  Ill,  2810. 

'*"  So  Boeck— n.  C.  I.  G.,  2943. 

"'C.  I.  L.,  XII,  6038. 

"^C.  I.  L.,  X,  885-890.  a.  885-887,  Mercury  and  Maia;  b.  888, 
Augustus,  Mercury  and  Maia;  c.  890,  Augustus  alone. 

Cf.  also  C.  I.  L.,  XIV,  3679,  where  also  we  find  a  com- 
bination of  the  gods  with  Augustus,  then  Augustus.  The  sec- 
ond column  of  this  inscription  combines  Augustus  with  others. 
See  also  C.  I.  L.,  VIII,  6339,  from  Numidia,  which  unites  Aug. 
with  Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus. 


The  Rider-Cult  in  the  Reign  of  Augustus     73 

deities  into  the  shadow  began  in  the  reign  of  Au- 
gustus. 

I  have  made  no  attempt  to  fix  with  exact- 
ness the  dates  of  all  these  Augustan  inscriptions 
to  determine  in  each  instance  whether  or  not  it 
precedes  or  follows  his  decease  and  formal  deifica- 
tion. It  is  of  no  vital  importance,  as  inscriptions 
of  all  the  leading  types  belong  in  both  periods. 
His  death  made  little  difference,  as  his  deification 
was  already  practically  accomplished  and  the  post 
mortem  celebration  was  merely  formal. ^"^^ 

Suetonius  naively  discloses  the  general  attitude 
in  this  matter  when  he  ascribes  to  Augustus  him- 
self the  curious  notion  that  his  punctilio  with  re- 
gard to  paying  his  gambling  debts  would  redound 
to  his  ultimate  glorification:  "Sed  hoc  malo;  be- 
nignitas  enim  mea  me  ad  coelestem  gloriam  effe- 
ret."  i^« 


^*®Dio  (51.20)  gives  an  account  of  the  honors  decreed  to 
Augustus  in  the  year  29  B.C.  Among  other  things  it  was 
decreed,  2s  re  vnvovs  avrbv  e^  itrov  tois  deois  ksy pa<f)ecrdaL  koll  (f>v\^v 
lovXiov  kir  avToO  kiravoyia^tadai,  etc.  The  honors  included  a 
crown  in  all  processions,  senators  in  purple-bordered  togas, 
a  perpetually  consecrated  day  and,  particularly  the  follo\ying, 
lepeas  re  avrbv  koll  virep  rbv  apidnbv  6(rovs_  av  ah  kdeXrjcrV  aipeiadat 
7rpocr/caTecrr77craf TO. Two  items  in  this  account  are  particularly 
worthy  of  note.  First,  the  naming  of  the  Julian  family;  and 
second,  the  enlarged  list  of  imperial  priests.  Dio  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  custom  then  established  was  kept  up  until  in  his  day 
the  number  of  priests  was  boundless. 

""Divus  Aug.  71,  cf.  ibid.,  97. 


74     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

Suetonius  also  says  ^^^  that  a  limit  was  set  to 
the  posthumous  honors  paid  to  Augustus  but  it  is 
not  easy  to  see  where  the  line  was  drawn  inas- 
much as  the  usual  rites  were  conducted  with  great 
elaboration,  ''nee  defuit  vir  praetorius,  qui  se  effi- 
glem  cremati  euntem  in  caelum  vidisse  juraret." 

"'  D.  A.,  loo. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   RULER-CULT   UNDER  THE   SUCCESSORS   OF 
AUGUSTUS 

I.    The  Cult  of  the  Augusti 

IN  reviewing  the  history  of  the  emperor-cult  as 
a  whole,  from  the  time  of  Augustus  on — un- 
der his  successors — ^the  most  striking  single  fea- 
ture is  the  development  of  the  cult  of  the  Augusti. 
By  this  process,  which  grew  out  of  the  general 
organism  of  imperial  deification  as  fecundated  by 
the  dynastic  idea,  the  emperors  together  with 
members  of  the  royal  family  and  even  of  the  im- 
perial entourage  were  formed  into  a  Roman 
Olympus — that  is,  an  organized  hierarchy  of  ac- 
cepted deities.^^^  Certain  stages  in  this  unique 
development  are  clearly  discernible.  The  first  step 
is  disclosed  in  an  inscription  already  referred  to 
more  than  once,^^^  in  which  with  Augustus,  his 

"^'In  a  coin  of  Sardis  (see  Eckhel  D.  N.  A.,  VI,  p.  211). 
Drusus  and  Germanicus  are  called  veoi  deol.  Eckhel  caustically 
says:  "Vocantur  {v.  6.),  istud  fane  pro  Graecorum  genio,  qui 
Olympum  colonis  implevere."  He  also  strongly  affirms  that 
these  coins  in  honor  of  the  adopted  sons  of  Tiberius  were  made 
when  the  young  princes  were  still   alive. 

^'^C.LL,Xn,4333. 

75 


76      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

wife,  his  children  and  his  race,  are  combined. 
Other  inscriptions  refer  to  Livia,  the  wife  of  Au- 
gustus, under  the  divine  title  'Yyeia,^^*  and 
Julia.i^^ 

Other  women  of  the  imperial  house  were  also 
honored  as  goddesses.^^^ 

Far  more  important,  however,  than  this 
tendency  to  include  wives,  relatives,  and  favorites, 
within  the  divine  nimbus  of  the  emperor,  was  the 
self-perpetuating  character  of  the  organization 
which  had  been  built  up  for  the  purpose  of  ad- 
vancing the  interests  of  the  cult.^^'^ 

^^  c.  I.  A.,  Ill,  460. 

^^  C.  I.  L.,  XII,  1363,  4249.  Flaminlcae  luliae  Augustae. 
C.  I.  L.,  II,  2038,  luliae  Augustae 

Matri  Ti.  Caesaris  Aug.  Prin. 

^^^  Cf.  C  I.  A.,  Ill,  315,  316.  In  these  inscriptions  the  Dalian 
Priest  of  Apollo,  of  Caesar  Augustus,  High  Priest  of  Antonia 
Augusta,  the  priestess  of  the  goddess  Antonia,  the  priestess  of 
Vesta,  Livia  and  Julia  are  mentioned.  It  has  been  hinted  that 
Livia  herself  was  called  Vesta — see  note  ut  supra. 

Julia,  the  wife  of  Agrippa,  is  called  Aphrodite  Geneteira 
at  Eresos  in  Asia  Minor  (23-1  B.C.). 

Tiberius  and  his  mother  Livia  were  worshiped  as  divine 
mother  and  son  at  Tiberiopolis  in  Phrygia  (see  Ramsay:  Hist. 
Geoff.  Asia  Minor,  p.  147)  ;  Agrippina  was  called  6ea  AtoXts 
KapTTo^opos  at  Lesbos;  Poppaea  Sabina  was  honored  at  Ak- 
monia  as  the  goddess  of  "Imperial  Fertility"  {Xe^aarr]  Ev^oaia). 
See  C.  L  G.,  3858. 

"■^In  the  Narbo  inscription  of  11  B.C.,  referred  to  elsewhere 
(see  p.  54),  occurs  the  expression:  ''Qui  se  numini  eius  im- 
perpetuum  colendo  obligaverunt."  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say 
that  the  system  was  intended  to  be  permanent,  and  as  human 
institutions  go,  was  permanent — it  lasted  nearly  as  long  as  the 
Empire. 

The  scope  and  effectiveness  of  the  post-Augustan  organiza- 
tion may  be  seen  from  the  following  facts  in  Asia  Minor. 
Ramsay    {Cities  and   Bishoprics   of   Phrygia)    shows   that   the 


Rider-Cult  Under  the  Successors  of  Augustus     77 

For  example,  in  the  time  of  Claudius  (41-54 
A.D.)  there  are  Augustales  Claudlales.^^^  Again, 
the  Seviri,  which  were  originally  the  six  highest 
priests  of  Augustus,  were  perpetuated  through  suc- 
cessive reigns,  thus :  Seviri  Tiberiani  ^^^  Claudi- 
ales  ^^^  Neronieni,^^^  Flaviales.^^-  In  the  last  title 
the  dynastic  tendency  is  in  full  bloom.  It  was 
Domitian  who  established  a  temple  to  the  Flavian 
family,^^^  and  it  is  to  this  era  that  the  form  of 
oath  to  be  taken  by  a  praetor  left  in  charge  during 
the  absence  of  a  duum  vir,  which  includes  the  em- 
perors among  the  gods,  belongs.  The  oath  runs 
thus,^^*  "per  lovem  et  divom  Augustum  et  divom 

provincial  and  municipal  organization  was  practically  com- 
plete. There  were  foundations  of  the  imperial  cult  certainly 
in  many,  probably  in  all,  the  cities  of  Asia  Minor.  Whole 
provinces  united  in  establishing  foundations,  and  these  'Koiva 
held  festivals  in  the  principalities.  Among  the  cities  mentioned 
in  this  connection  are  those  to  whom  the  Epistles  of  the  Apoc. 
were  written  {op.  cit.,  p.  55).  Under  Caracalla  and  Commodus 
cities  competed  for  the  title  "Neo/copos,"  which  was  bestowed 
upon  those  which  built  a  temple  dedicated  solely  to  an  em- 
peror. The  imperial  cult  adopted  and  adapted  the  existent 
religious  ministrants  such  as  hymnodoi,  theologoi,  etc.,  in  such 
a  way  as  practically  to  confiscate  the  existing  temple-founda- 
tions. Add  to  that  the  accompanying  assumption  of  the  func- 
tions and  dignities  of  the  established  deities,  and  the  taking  over 
process  seems  quite  complete.  The  festival  of  Zeus  at  Laodi- 
cea  became  the  feast  of  Zeus  and  the  Emperors  before  A.D.  150 
{ibid.,  pp.  iif). 

"'See  P.  W.,  II,  2355. 

"'C.  I.  L.,  IX,  6415. 

"°  C.  I.  L.,  XI,  714. 

^^  C.  I.  L.,  V,  3429. 

;^C.  I.  L.,  V,  4399,  XI^  4639;  XII,  1159. 

"'Suet.:  Dom.  V. 

*^C.  I.  L.,  II,  1963,  and  4. 


78      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

Claudlum  et  divom  Vespaslanum  et  divum  Tltum 
Augustum  et  genium  Caesaris  Domitlani  August! 
deosque  penates." 

In  the  acts  of  the  Arval  brothers/^^  an  entry 
for  the  year  69  A.D.  which  prescribes  the  mode  of 
sacrifice  on  stated  occasions  (Feb.  and  March) 
reads: 

lovl  (bull) 

lunono  (heifer) 

SalutI  Rom.  Pop.    (heifer) 

DIvo  Augusto  (bull) 

DIvae  Augustae  (heifer) 

DIvo  Claudlo  (bull) 

On  March  first,  and  again  on  the  ninth,  the  em- 
peror offered  sacrifice  as  this  canon  called  for,  and 
in  addition  offered  a  bull  "Genio  Ipslus." 

Just  when  the  term  Augusti  was  first  applied 
as  a  collective  designation  for  the  divi,  their  liv- 
ing successor,  relations  and  satellites  looked  upon 
as  "a  fast-closed  group  of  new  deities"  ^^^  I  have 
been  unable  to  determine.  The  inscriptions  are  so 
numerous,  so  widespread,  and  so  nearly  contempo- 
raneous that  it  becomes  diflicult,  If  not  Impossible, 

^"Henzen:  Acta  Arvalia,  year  69  A.D.  Under  date  A.D.  183 
the  festival  of  the  Arval  Brothers  was  held  in  which  the  old 
ritual  was  gone  through  with  the  addition  of  sixteen  divi 
{ibid.).  The  "Carmen  Saliorum"  was  also  addressed  to  the 
living  emperors,  see  Wordsworth  Fragmenta  sub  <voc.  Mar- 
quardt:  Rom.  Staats.,  iii,  pp.  427-438. 

""Wissowa:  Op.  cit.,  p.  71. 


Ruler-Cult  Under  the  Successors  of  Augustus     79 

to  determine  dates.  I  am  convinced,  however,  that 
the  epigraphic  evidence  will  lead  us  back  within  a 
reign  or  two  of  Augustus  himself.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  designated  high-priests  of  the 
Augusti  in  a  group  of  inscriptions  in  and  about 
Athens  which  come  down  as  late  as  143  A.D.^^'' 
(Antoninus  Pius) .  No  worship,  therefore,  is  more 
characteristic  of  the  imperial  age  as  a  whole  than 
this  veneration  of  the  Augusti.  This  becomes  the 
more  evident  when  we  consider  another  related 
fact,  already  hinted  at,  that  these  new  deities  ex- 
hibited a  tendency  to  supersede  the  established  and 
traditional  Olympian  gods.  To  exhibit  this  tend- 
ency in  full  bloom  it  is  necessary  only  to  refer  to 
a  group  of  inscriptions  discovered  in  Asia  Minor 
by  the  Wolfe  expedition  of  1884-5.^^^  I  gi^^  ^ 
translation  of  a  Greek  inscription  ^^^  from  Kara 
Baulo,  on  the  western  edge  of  Zengi  Ovasii : 

"The  Council  and  the  People 
Honored  Councilor  Bianor  son  of 
Antiochus, 

City-lover,  gymnasiarch  * 

High-priest  of  the  Augusti 
Founder  of  the  City." 

'^  C.  I.  A.,  Ill,  57,  389,  665,  668,  669,  670,  671,  672,  673,  675a. 

^°*  Published  by  the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America  in 
1888  as  Studies  of  the  American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at 
Athens,  vol.  iii.  Written  by  J.  R.  Sitlington-Sterrett,  Ph.D. 
The  numbers  refer  to  this  volume. 

^*  No.  403,  see  op.  cit.,  p.  284,  also  cf.  282. 


8o      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

Another  inscription  ^^^  taken  from  the  Temple  of 
the  Augusti  and  Aphrodite  (who  is  ignored  in  the 
inscription,  as  she  takes  second  place  in  the  title  of 
the  temple)  is  dedicated  by  Antiochus,  the  Son  of 
Tlamoos,  designated  as  apxi-epevs  tcov  Se/Sao-rcoi',  to 
Oeols  SejSao-rots  kcll  r>?  7rarpt5t.  His  wife  is  desig- 
nated in  the  same  way  as  high-priestess.  Another 
Inscription  ^"^^  from  the  Temple  of  the  Emperors 
and  Zeus  Sarapis  perpetrates  the  same  double 
irony  upon  the  Olympian  member  of  the  group 
as  in  the  preceding  instance,  for  the  person  desig- 
nated is  simply  "High-priest  of  the  Augusti.'' 
Here  Is  unmistakable  epigraphic  evidence  that,  in 
one  locality  at  least,  the  emperor  cult  pushed  into 
the  back-ground  and  practically  superseded  the 
Olympian  system. ^^- 

2.    The  Manifoldness  and  Pervasiveness  of 
THE  Emperor-Cult 

We  have  now  come  to  a  point  where  it  will  be 
profitable  to  attempt  a  rapid  review  and  summary 
of  results. 

The  Roman  imperial-cult  had  behind  it  the 
force  of  a  primary  instinct  and  the  accelerated 

""409  cf.  also  410  410,  411,  412. 

'"417. 

"'^  Cf.  Wissowa:  Op.  cit.,  p.  72;  Beurlier:  Le  Culte  Imperiale, 
p.  17;  Sterret:  p.  290.  The  latter  says  that  all  the  temples  at 
Kara  Baulo  are  identified  with  the  emperor  worship. 


Rider-Ciilt  Under  the  Successors  of  Augustus     8i 

momentum  of  ancient  and  persistent  custom.  A 
world-wide  movement  recorded  In  the  earliest  doc- 
uments of  Babylonia  and  in  the  latest  of  the 
Roman  Empire  has  passed  in  review  before  us. 
The  worship  of  rulers  arose  among  the  Romans 
partly  de  novo  as  a  native  and  spontaneous  action, 
partly  through  the  operation  of  countless  converg- 
ing lines  of  Influence. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  republic,  when  offices 
were  temporary  and  filled  by  the  choice  of  an 
electorate,  certain  powerful  individuals  were  sin- 
gled out  for  honors  indistinguishable  from  those 
offered  to  the  gods,  while  generals  and  pro-con- 
suls came  back  from  the  provinces  with  the  pres- 
tige of  deification.  The  movement  reached  a  pre- 
liminary climax  in  the  honors  granted  to  the  domi- 
nant personality  of  Julius  Cassar,  who  during  his 
life-time  was  deified  abroad  and  in  Italy,  and 
immediately  upon  his  decease  was  officially  put  in 
the  company  of  the  Immortals.  In  the  reign  of  his 
successor,  Augustus,  an  organized  cult  of  the 
DIvus  Julius  was  established  and  almost  simul- 
taneously with  It  a  priesthood  and  worship  of  the 
reigning  emperor  was  put  into  operation. 
Throughout  the  empire,  particularly  In  the  prov- 
inces, but  to  a  certain  extent  In  Italy  itself,  the 
combined  worship  of  the  divi  and  the  living  rulers 
was  carried  on  under  the  highest  imperial  and 
local  auspices. 


82      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

Dolllnger  enables  us  to  grasp  the  whole  process 
and  to  visualize  both  its  forward  movement  in 
the  direct  line  of  the  Augusti  and  its  lateral  out- 
reach to  include  those  who  were  deified  through 
their  close  association  with  the  emperor,  when  he 
states  ^^^  that,  from  the  beginning  to  the  time  of 
Diocletian,  there  were  fifty-three  solemn  consecra- 
tions, including  those  of  fifteen  women.  There 
were  in  Rome  ^'^^  temples  of  the  Divus  lulius;  of 
the  Divus  Augustus;  ^"^^  of  the  divi;^'^^  of  the 
Divus  Claudius;  ^^^  of  Clementiae  Caesaris;  ^'^^  of 
the  Divus  Marcus  Aurelius;  of  the  Divus  Tra- 
janus;  of  the  Divus  Vespasianus;  of  the  Divus  An- 
toninus and  Faustina. 

This  is  certainly  an  indication  of  the  power  and 
influence  of  the  cult.  I  might  go  on  indefinitely 
summarizing  in  this  same  way,  the  multitudinous 
evidences  of  the  universality  and  pervasiveness  of 
the  cult.  I  think,  however,  that  an  intensive  look 
at  a  limited  group  of  facts  will  make  the  situa- 
tion much  clearer. 

For  example,  of  flamens  and  priests  of  Roma 

"^  0/>.  cit.,  p.  6i6.  There  are  extant  coins  of  forty-eight  dei- 
fied royal  persons,  Duruy:  Hist.  Rom.,  Eng.  tr.,  Vol.  V,  p.  i68. 

"*  Kiepert  and  Huelsen — Formae  Urbis,  etc.,  pp.  74ff. 

^"Situated  on  the  Palatine:  see  Suet.  Tib.,  47,  cf.  Acta  Ar- 
<valia:  Henzen,  p.  LV. 

"°See  Henzen:  pp.  XI  and  XXXIII,  where  the  Augustan 
rites  are  given. 

^~J  Sueton.  Vesp.,  9. 

^"Ded.  to  Julius  Caesar,  yr.  44.     See  Dio,  47:6. 


Ruler-Cult  Under  the  Successors  of  Augustus     83 

and  the  August! ;  of  Roma  alone  (once  only); 
or  of  Roma,  divi  and  August!,  there  were  twenty 
in  Tarraconencis  alone,  nine  in  Tarraco  alone. 
There  are  extant  inscriptions  commemorating 
flamens,  sacerdotes,  Augustales,  or  members  or- 
dints  Augustalis  from  nineteen  localities  in  Italy.^^^ 
In  Pompeii  there  are  records  of  seven  different 
men  named  as  Augustales. ^^^  There  are  from 
Pompeii  seven  inscriptions  dedicated  to  one  man 
who  must  have  repeatedly  acted  as  Imperial 
prlest.^^^ 

Another  side-light  upon  the  persistence  and 
power  of  this  cult  may  be  drawn  from  the  state- 
ment with  which  Hirschfeld  closes  his  mono- 
graph :  ^^2  "The  Christian  Church  in  no  small  de- 
gree borrowed  for  its  councils  and  priests  the  out- 
ward forms,  names  and  insignia  of  the  provincial 
Kaiser-cult  which  for  three  hundred  years  had 
formed  the  visible  token  of  Imperial  unity  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West."i83 

"''See  C.  I.  L.,  X,  p.  1149. 

""C.  I.  L.,  X,  961,  977,  997,  994,  1026  (age  of  Nero),  1030, 
1034,  1066. 
^^^  Holconlus  Rufus,  C.  I.  L.,  X,  830,  837,  838,  840,  943,  944, 

"'Of  cit,  p.  862. 

"^  Hirschfeld's  last  paragraph  is  interesting  from  another 
point  of  view  also.  He  points  out  how  the  meaning  and  sig- 
nificance died  out  of  the  cult  even  while  the  institutional  frame- 
work established  to  carry  it  on  still  stood  intact. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  RULER-CULT  AS  A  POLITICAL  INSTRUMENT 

I.    Its  Politico-religious  Origin 

THAT  the  ruler-cult  everywhere  had  a  semi- 
political  origin,  has  already  become  evident. 
The  very  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  those  his- 
torically known  to  us  as  having  been  deified  were 
either  civil  or  military  leaders  indicates  clearly 
enough  the  presence  of  a  powerful  political  motive 
in  the  entire  development. 

In  Persia,  at  a  time  sufficiently  early  to  ante- 
date the  Zoroastrian  documents,  the  legitimate  line 
of  Iranian  kings  were  looked  upon  as  of  divine 
lineage,  sole  possessors  and  transmitters  of  the 
heavenly  glory.  In  ancient  Egypt,  we  are  able 
to  follow  from  the  records  the  concrete  operation 
of  the  political  factor.  The  crystallization  into 
a  fixed  dogma  of  legitimacy,  involving  the  con- 
temporary ruler,  of  a  vague  mythology  of  the  past, 
was  undertaken  to  establish  and  legitimatize  an 
irregular  and  usurping  dynasty.  The  priests  of 
Hierapolis  were   apparently  responsible   for  the 

84 


The  Ruler-Cult  as  a  Political  Instrument     85 

political  revolution  which  they  fostered  and  com- 
pleted by  means  of  this  new  religious  dogma.  In 
all  this  the  union  of  religion  and  state-craft  is  evi- 
dent. 

In  the  case  of  Alexander  of  Macedon  the  po- 
litical motive  is  still  more  plainly  discernible. 
Alexander  was  not  of  the  royal  Egyptian  line  but 
an  alien  conqueror  who  could  not,  according  to  any 
strict  interpretation  of  the  established  doctrine,  be 
the  legitimate  ruler  of  Egypt.  Nevertheless,  he 
possessed  the  ancient  right  by  which  all  dynasties 
were  originally  established — the  right  of  irresist- 
ible power.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  priests, 
when  called  upon,  found  a  way  to  reconcile  their 
sacred  dogma  with  the  exigencies  of  the  situation. 
The  conqueror  was  proclaimed  Son  of  Re,  by 
adoption,  which,  of  course,  involved  an  actual 
physical  apotheosis.  From  a  non-political  point  of 
view  this  ceremony  was  a  sycophantic  farce,  but  it 
would  take  a  very  wise  man  to  tell  what  else  the 
priests  could  have  done. 

In  the  case  of  the  Roman  rulers,  the  evidence 
points  in  the  same  direction.  The  rehgion  of 
Rome  from  the  earliest  days  of  the  City-state  was 
political  in  character.  By  the  tus  divinum  worship 
was  put  in  the  hands  of  state  officials.^^*     Next 

^^*Polybius  (Hist.,  vi,  56)  claims  that  religion  was  invented 
in  order  to  keep  the  unruly  masses  in  order.  The  basis  of 
his  argument  is  the  Roman  state-religion. 


86      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

came  the  worship  of  Roma,  the  deified  Genius,  so 
to  speak,  of  the  Roman  state,  preceding  or  accom- 
panying the  deification  of  the  emperors  and,  as 
has  often  been  pointed  out,  forming  an  interme- 
diate and  transitional  form  of  worship  between 
the  traditional  deities  and  the  nascent  imperial 
system.  Moreover,  it  is  a  significant  fact,  that 
the  organized  movement  leading  toward  imperial 
deification  began  in  the  provinces  where  the  im- 
perial rule  was  most  powerfully  felt  in  bringing 
order  out  of  political  chaos.  Dollinger^^^  says 
that  the  longing  for  a  world-deliverer,  lacking  its 
true  object,  turned  to  the  world-conqueror.  "He 
delivered  men  from  the  chaos  of  cival  war  and 
the  tyranny  of  pro-consuls." 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  how  religion  and  civic 
interest  should  thus  be  intertwined.  The  relation- 
ships between  Church  and  State,  that  is,  between 
the  people  as  a  political  entity  and  the  same  people 
as  a  worshiping  body,  have  always  been  intimate, 
difficult  to  define  in  theory  and  still  more  difficult 
to  separate  in  practice. 

Civil  administration  bears  so  directly  and  so 
powerfully  upon  all  human  interests,  is  so  fraught 
with  weal  or  woe  to  all  mankind,  that  the  wielder 
of  political  authority  tends  to  become  one  of  the 
elemental  powers  of  the  world,  stands  apart  from 

^^H.  J.,  p.  614. 


The  Ruler-Ciilt  as  a  Political  Instrument     87 

the  rest  of  humanity,  and  gathers  himself  some- 
thing of  the  exaltation  and  awfulness  of  the  super- 
natural. As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  process  is  not 
altogether  artificial  or  imaginary.  An  autocrat 
with  legions  of  armed  men  under  his  command 
and  with  the  resources  of  a  world-empire  at  his 
disposal,  with  authority  of  life  and  death  over 
millions  of  his  fellow-men,  actually  exercises  some 
functions  of  deity. 

As  Boissieu  says :  ^^^  *'Nous  voila  en  presence 
de  la  veritable  divinite  de  I'epoque  imperiale,  de 
la  divinite  de  I'Empereur;  divinite  visible,  agis- 
sante,  puissante  pour  proteger  comme  pour  nuire, 
dispensatrice  souveraine  et  realle  des  honneurs  et 
de  la  fortune;  Lare  supreme  de  la  patrie  que 
resume  en  lui  tous  les  interets  et  tous  les  pouvoir 
de  TEtat." 

Granted  the  polytheistic  system  to  start  with, 
there  would  seem  to  be  a  place  for  a  deity  with  a 
sphere  of  operation  so  vast  and  with  a  power  so 
great  as  those  possessed  by  the  Roman  em- 
peror.^^^  Of  this  I  shall  have  more  to  say  here- 
after. 


^'^0/».  cit.,  p.  51. 

"^The  fact  so  well  stated  by  Aust  {op.  cit.,  p.  22)  should 
always  be  kept  in  mind  in  this  connection:  "The  gods  (of 
the  Romans)  have  no  life  for  themselves  alone.  Their  activ- 
ity is  expressly  confined  to  the  service  of  men.  What  the  re- 
ligion loses  in  comprehensiveness,  it  gains  in  intensity." 


88      Aspects  of  Roitian  Emperor-W orship 

2.    Its  Influence  in  Consolidating  the 
Empire 

Accepting  the  fact,  which  needs  no  further  elab- 
oration, that  the  process  of  imperial  deification 
had  behind  it  a  political  motive,  we  should  next 
consider  its  use  in  the  furtherance  of  political  or- 
ganization. The  emperor-cult  was  the  only  avail- 
able religious  instrument  for  promoting  the  unifi- 
cation of  the  empire.  The  traditional  Graeco- 
Roman  system  possessed  no  inter-racial  organiza- 
tion, comparable  to  the  Christian  Church,  by  which 
a  group-consciousness  transcending  the  ordinary 
limits  of  race  or  clan  could  be  formed.  It  was 
thus  local,  fragmentary  and  chaotic.  There  was 
no  imperial  quality  in  it.  Even  where  cognate 
deities  were  worshiped  and  even  after  the  wan- 
dering of  the  gods  began  and  syncretism  took  place 
on  a  large  scale,  the  result  was  confusion,  not  uni- 
fication. And  for  the  most  part,  the  deities  of  the 
old  system  remained  what  they  always  had  been, 
local  and  fixed. 

Into  this  chaos  came  the  empire,  first  with  a 
conquering  army  bearing  everywhere  the  stand- 
ards and  illustrating  the  name  and  dignity  of  the 
emperor.  Following  the  irresistible  thrust  of  the 
army  came  administrative  officials,  including 
priests  of  the  imperial  cult.     Altars  were  set  up. 


The  Ruler-Cult  as  a  Political  Instrument     89 

Men  of  eminence  in  their  cities,  towns,  or  even 
provinces,  were  selected  as  Augustales  or  cultores 
of  the  new  worship.  Elaborate  rites,  including 
brilliant  festal  celebrations  with  public  games  and 
solemn  sacrifices,  were  established  in  important 
centers  of  population  and  government  throughout 
the  empire — all  of  which  tended  to  focus  count- 
less blending  lights  of  splendor  upon  the  person  of 
the  emperor.  The  inevitable  result  was  unifica- 
tion. The  emperor's  name  was  carried  through- 
out his  vast  dominions  and  his  power  known  and 
felt  everywhere.  The  center  of  this  system  is  the 
imperial  throne  at  Rome;  its  circumference,  the 
outermost  boundaries  of  the  empire;  its  radii, 
the  countless  major  and  minor  officials  who  wear 
the  livery  and  perform  the  rites  of  the  deified 
emperor,  and  in  so  doing  bind  every  community 
however  remote  and  almost  every  individual  to 
the  royal  person  by  the  two-fold  bond  of  political 
loyalty  and  religious  devotion.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  the  only  deity  equally  well-known  in 
every  locality  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  the  em- 
peror. 

Mommsen  ^^^  has  outlined  brilliantly  the  build- 
ing up  of  this  vast  imperial  structure.  The  de- 
tails were  not  left  to  chance  or  local  enthusiasm. 
Far-sighted  political  genius  swept  the  whole  em- 

^^^Rom.  Gesch.  Band  V,   passim. 


90      Aspects  of  Roman  E^nperor-W orship 

pire  and  selected  key-positions  for  the  establish- 
ment of  shrines,  temples  and  local  worship. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  Drusus  established  ^^^ 
an  altar  Romae  et  Genio  Augusti  at  Lugdunum 
(Lyons)  at  the  junction  of  the  Saone  and  Rhone 
rivers.  Here  native  priests,  chosen  by  the  united 
Gallic  provinces  themselves,  carried  on  the  im- 
perial rites.  At  Colonia  Agrippina  (modern 
Cologne)  the  chief  town  of  the  Ubii,  there  was  a 
great  altar  and  in  the  year  9  B.C.  the  officiating 
priest,  Segimundus,  the  son  of  Segestes,  was  prince 
of  the  native  royal  house.  At  the  sources  of  the 
Neckar,  near  the  modern  Rottweil,  were  the  Ara? 
Flaviae,  established  by  Titus  or  Domitian  in  a  set- 
tlement made  by  Vespasian.  Mommsen  has  a 
most  suggestive  note  here.  He  says  (I  condense) 
that  in  all  probability  there  were  other  altars  here 
beside  the  chief  one  named,  as  is  shown  by  "das 
Zuriicktreten  des  Roma  cults  neben  dem  der  Kai- 
ser." 

Here  as  elsewhere  the  all-absorbing  tendency  of 
the  imperial  cult  showed  itself.  It  pushed  every 
other  worship  into  the  background  and  seized  the 
whole  empire  in  its  all-inclusive  grasp.  At  Sar- 
migetusa,  in  the  mountains  of  western-central  Da- 
cia,  an  altar  was  established  for  that  province. 
As  a  striking  instance  of  the  extent  of  this  organ- 

^^See  Dessau:  I.  L.  S.,  v.  i,  p.  31,  No.  112. 


The  Ruler-Cult  as  a  Political  Instrument     91 

izatlon  and  the  quality  of  the  personnel  entering 
into  it,  we  may  instance  Polemon,  "King  of  Pontus 
and  perpetual  high-priest  of  the  emperor  and  the 
imperial  house."  ^^^  Also,  in  Britain,  there  were 
central  towns  for  the  emperor  cult  though  we  do 
not  know  in  which  of  the  three  legionary  camps 
the  governor  of  the  province  had  his  residence. 
We  do  know,  however,  that  the  same  camp  was 
the  seat  of  the  provincial  council  and  "the  com- 
mon emperor-worship."  ^^^ 

There  is  another  aspect  of  this  whole  matter  of 
imperial  unification  which  will  come  up  for  more 
detailed  discussion  later.  I  may  merely  hint  at 
it  here.  Political  action  and  re-action  are  often 
measurably  equal.  A  strong  and  elaborate  device 
for  promoting  unification,  when  it  does  not  work, 
becomes  divisive  in  proportion  to  its  original 
thrusting  power.  In  several  instances  the  imperial 
cult  failed  of  its  purpose,  incidentally,  perhaps,  as 
in  Camolodunum  in  West  Britain,  where  a  rebel- 
lion broke  out  under  Paullinus  after  the  walls  of 
the  temple  to  the  god  Claudius  had  been  put  up, 
or  under  the  same  Segimundus  who  was  imperial 
priest  for  the  Ubii.  In  two  instances,  at  least, 
the  attempt  to  enforce  conformity  in  the  worship 
of  the  emperor  thrust  deeply  Into  the  unity  of 

"^'Mommsen:  Op.  cit,  p.  293    (does  not  give  his  authority). 
^^'Mommsen:  Op.  cit.,  p.  176. 


92      Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

the  empire.  I  refer  to  the  Jews  and  the  Chris- 
tians. In  the  latter  case,  particularly,  the  conflict 
between  Paganism  and  Christianity  arose  in  direct 
connection  with  the  worship  of  the  emperor.  This 
topic  will  be  resumed  in  its  proper  place,  but  its 
significance  just  here  is  not  to  be  overlooked. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  RULER-CULT  AND  THE  POSITION  OF  THE 
EMPEROR 

I.     Deification  and  the  Mind  of  the 
Emperor 

THIS  system  of  ruler-worship  inevitably  had 
a  very  important  influence  upon  the  -posi- 
tion of  the  emperor.  Under  normal  circum- 
stances, altogether  apart  from  any  investment  with 
divine  dignities  and  honors,  the  imperial  position 
was  one  of  almost  limitless  power  and  responsibil- 
ity. In  itself  the  administrative  burden  involved 
was  sufficiently  heavy  to  weigh  down  any  but  the 
most  robust  intelligence.  Clothed,  however,  by 
these  popular  adorations  with  enormously  en- 
hanced distinction,  the  burden  must  have  been  lit- 
tle short  of  absolutely  crushing.  What  human 
mind  could  stand  such  world-wide  persistent,  or- 
ganized adulation?  It  would  seem  that  if  the  em- 
peror himself,  even  for  a  moment,  sincerely  believ- 
ed what  the  people  were  taught  and  undoubtedly 
believed  concerning  him,  the  result  must  have  been 

93 


94     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

madness.  This  supposition  would  seem  to  be  fully 
justified  by  the  biography  of  the  Caesars.  It  can 
scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  system  of  ruler-wor- 
ship had  much  to  do  with  the  production  of  the 
semi-insane,  or  wholly  insane,  monsters,  such  as 
Caligula,  Nero  and  Domitian,  who  blackened  th^ 
history  of  imperial  Rome  with  such  incredible  fol- 
lies and  infamies.  In  this  w^ay  the  working  out  of 
the  system  contributed  something  to  its  own  over- 
throw. On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  clear  to  me 
that  the  sanest  members  of  the  royal  group  were 
those  whose  attitude  toward  their  own  divinity 
was,  to  say  the  least,  ambiguous.  I  should  place 
in  this  class  Tiberius,  Titus  and  Vespasian. 

In  order  to  bring  out  this  point  let  us  contrast 
Gaius  Caligula  and  Tiberius. 

Caligula  began  his  career  with  the  customary 
homage  to  the  imagines  Cassarum.^^^  Not  long 
after  his  accession,  at  a  public  banquet,  he  shouted: 
**  Ets  Kolpavos  earco,  eh  j(3d(7tX€i;s."   ^^^ 

From  that  time  "divinam  majestatem  asserere 
sibi  coepit."  ^^^  He  systematically  and  dramat- 
ically placed  himself  alongside  the  gods,  playing 
successively  the  parts  of  Neptune,  Juno  (sic), 
Diana,   Venus,   Hercules,   Bacchus,    and  Apollo, 


'''  Suet.  Cal.,  XIV. 
"'Iliad,  2.204. 
'^Suet.  Cal.,  XXII. 


Ruler-Cult  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     95 

changing  his  make-up  to  suit  each  role.^^^  He  de- 
manded worship,  claimed  that  he  had  intercourse 
with  the  moon-goddess  and  that  his  sister  was 
equally  intimate  with  Jupiter. 

Dio  affirms  that  he  did  these  things,  not  as 
those  who  are  accustomed  consciously  to  play 
an  assumed  role,  dXXd  iraw  doKovvres  tI  klvai.  In 
other  words,  he  took  the  ascriptions  of  deity  to 
himself  seriously.  Mommsen  says :  *'Dass  Kaiser 
Gaius  so  ernsthaft  wie  sein  verwirrter  Geist  es 
Vermochte,  sich  fur  einen  wirklichen  und  lieb- 
haften  Gott  hielt,  wusste  alle  Welt,  und  die  Juden 
und  der  Statthalter  auch."  ^^^  An  indication  that 
Caligula  took  his  divinity  seriously  is  afforded  by 
his  remarks  to  the  Jewish  legation.^^^ 

Another  striking  and  portentous  fact  is  to  be 
considered  here.  Caligula  made  his  sister,  Dru- 
silla,  his  concubine,  and  upon  her  death  fourteen 
specific  divine  honors  were  bestowed  upon  her,  so 
that  she  became  by  law  diva.  These  included  a 
divine  name  (Panthea),  a  declaration  of  immor- 
tahty,  a  witness  to  her  physical  apotheosis,  shrines, 
priests,  priestesses,  and  severe  penalties  for  sacri- 
lege. I  cannot  resist  the  conclusion  that  in  the 
relationship  of  Gaius  and  Drusilla,  we  have  some- 

^""Dio,   59. 1 1. 12. 

"^^Rdmische  Gesch.,  B.  V.,  p.  516. 

"^  See  below,  p.  127. 


g6     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

thing  far  more  significant  than  mere  erotic  degen- 
eracy. Have  we  not  here  the  direct  influence  of 
the  Ptolemies  and  their  predecessors, — the  same 
idea  that  the  blood  of  the  gods  must  be  kept  pure 
and  the  same  method  of  putting  the  idea  into 
effect? 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  Caligula  was  mad. 
The  question  is,  however,  did  he  believe  that  he 
was  divine  because  he  w^as  mad,  or  become  mad 
because  he  believed  himself  to  be  actually  divine? 

The  consensus  of  facts  leads  me  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  latter  is  true.  His  undoubtedly  ill- 
balanced  mind  was  actually  overturned  by  the  gen- 
eral acceptance  of  his  divinity. 

In  striking  contrast  with  Caligula,  stands  Ti- 
berius. This  powerful  monarch's  attitude  to  his 
own  divinity  at  first  thought  seems  ambiguous. ^^^ 
He  was  ferociously  devoted  to  the  cult  of  Augus- 
tus— more  than  ordinarily  reticent  as  to  his  own. 
There  were  five  items  at  least  in  the  law  govern- 
ing sacrilege  toward  Augustus, ^^^  some  of  them 
going  to  absurd  lengths,  which  were  rigorously 
enforced.  For  example,  a  man  was  put  to  death 
for  allowing  honors  to  be  giv^en  him  on  one  of  the 

"^  According  to  Hirschf  eld,  Tiberius,  while  living,  had  no 
temple  in  the  West  and  imperial  priests  in  a  few  cities  only 
{op.  ciL,  p.  842),  cf.  C.  I.  L.,  IX,  652:  X,  688;  IV,  n8o.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  coins  of  Tib.  in  which  he  calls  himself 
'Tilius  Divi  Augusti"  (see  Eckhel,  D.  N.  A.,  VI,  i92f). 

^''^Suet.  Tib.,  58. 


Ruler-Cult  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     97 

days  sacred  to  Augustus.  The  Inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  Cyzlcus  lost  their  liberties,  one  of  the  chief 
counts  against  them  being  their  omission  of  honors 
due  to  Augustus. ^^^  Divine  honors  without  stint 
were  offered  to  Tiberius.  In  the  year  26  A.D.  it 
is  said  that  eleven  towns  petitioned  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  building  temples  to  the  reigning  emperor. 
The  privilege  of  building  a  temple  to  Tiberius, 
his  mother,  and  the  Senate,  together  with  Roma, 
was  granted  to  Smyrna  and  refused  In  other  in- 
stances. 

In  connection  both  with  his  compliance  and  re- 
fusal, Tiberius  is  said  to  have  offered  an  explana- 
tion ^^^  which  exactly  brings  out  my  point.  After 
saying  that  a  single  act  of  compliance  with  such  a 
request  does  not  demand  an  apology,  he  says: 
"but  to  be  deified  throughout  the  provinces  and 
intrude  my  own  Image  among  the  statues  of  the 
gods,  what  would  It  be  but  vain  presumption,  and 
with  the  multiplication  of  such  honors,  vanescet 
August!  honor  si  promiscis  adulatlonibus  vulga- 
tur."  He  also  expressly  states  ^^^  that  he  does 
not  pretend  to  be  anything  more  than  a  man.  He 
refused  special  divine  honors  and  on  one  occasion : 
"Dominus  appellatus  a  quodam  denuntiavit,  ne  se 

=^Tac.  Ann.,  4.36;  cf.  Eckhel  D.  N.  A.,  II,  p.  546,  7,  and  V. 
M.,  IX,  1 1. 4.    Dio.,  57.6. 
^^  Tac.  Ann.,  4.37. 
^'Tac.  Ann.,  4.38. 


98      Aspects  of  Roftian  Emperor-Worship 

amplius  contumellae  causa  nomlnare."  ^^^  This 
modesty  Suetonius  ascribes  to  policy  and  says: 
"paulatim  principem  exseruit."  ^^^ 

I  do  not  agree  with  this  judgment.  The  incon- 
sistencies of  Tiberius  are  apparent  rather  than 
real.  He  undoubtedly  believed  in  the  institution 
of  the  divi  and  was  a  rigid  supporter  of  that  cult 
both  personally  and  officially.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  did  not  relish  divine  honors  for  himself,  nor 
did  he  believe  himself  divine.  Here  again  it  may 
be  difficult  to  say  whether  his  robust  intelligence 
in  thus  refusing  assent  to  the  popular  idea  con- 
cerning himself  was  cause  or  effect,  but  it  still  re- 
mains true  that  disbelief  was  really  necessary  to 
the  maintenance  of  sanity. 

A  similar  contrast  might  be  worked  out  between 
Vespasian  and  Domitian.  Vespasian,  honest  old 
soldier  that  he  was,  never  took  the  ascription  of 
deity  to  himself  seriously,  as  his  famous  mot  in 
articiilo  mortis  proves:  "Vae,  inquit,  puto  deus 
fio."  -^^  On  the  other  hand,  Domitian  was  gloom- 
ily jealous  lest  any  divine  honor  which  he  explic- 
itly claimed  might  be  omitted.-^^  ^^^ 

Another   still    more    far-reaching   result    came 

^  Suet.  Tib.,  26,  27. 

^Ibid.,  33. 

"^^  Suet.  Vesp.,  23. 

^'Philos.  App.  of  Ty.,  VII  :24.  A  magistrate  is  accused  of 
not  calling  Domitian  "Son  of  Minerva."  Cf.  Stat.  Silv.,  IV, 
3.128. 

^'On  Titus,  see  Dio:  66:19. 


Ruler-Cult  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     99 

from  the  changed  position  of  the  emperor 
through  deification.  In  the  long  run,  paganism 
was  compelled  to  stake  everything  on  one  throw. 
It  centred  every  religious  interest  in  the  emperor. 
It  thus  compromised  and  discounted  its  traditional 
system.  The  Olympians  were  pushed  into  the 
background.  When,  therefore,  paganism  was 
brought  face  to  face  with  Judaism  in  the  Disper- 
sion and  still  more  with  nascent  Christianity,  and 
compelled,  intellectually  speaking,  to  fight  for  its 
life,  it  had  to  stand  or  fall  by  its  imperialized  sys- 
tem. It  was  internally  discredited  and  weakened 
at  the  center  at  the  moment  when  the  attack  from 
without  came.  The  emperor-cult,  in  which  pagan- 
ism culminated,  did  much  to  prepare  the  way  for 
its  ultimate  overthrow.  The  emperor  as  the  vis- 
ible object  of  adoration,  the  divine  head  and  living 
embodiment  of  religion  became  its  shame  and  dis- 
grace. 

That  leads  us  to  another  climactic  point  In  the 
discussion. 


2.     The  Ruler-cult  as  a  Symptom  of  Deca- 
dence 

a.    the  taint  of  sycophancy 

It  may  be  due  to  the  rigorous  Intolerance  of  a 
mind  to  which  the  whole  system  is  grotesque  as 


100     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

well  as  alien,  but  I  find  it  difficult  to  believe  in  the 
religious  sincerity  of  much  of  this  prostration  be- 
fore the  throne  of  the  emperor.  The  only  con- 
sideration which  could  make  this  system  even  tol- 
erable is  that  it  should  be  genuine.  Then  we  could 
look  upon  it  as  a  sincere  illusion.  But  the  taint  of 
sycophancy  is  in  the  air.  I  can  understand  readily 
enough  that  on  its  popular  side,  with  the  ignorant 
populaces  of  Italian,  Grecian  and  Oriental  cities 
and  villages,  such  a  movement  might  be  both  spon- 
taneous and  genuine.  There  are  other  aspects 
of  it,  however,  which  are  not  so  easy  to  harmonize 
with  sincerity.  Take,  for  example,  the  words  of 
some  of  the  great  intellectuals,  spoken  or  written 
in  direct  address  to  the  living  emperors.  Virgil 
begins  and  ends  the  first  book  of  the  Georgics  -^^ 
by  invoking,  among  other  gods,  Augustus,  to 
whom  he  attributes  the  right  to  choose  his  own 
place  amid  the  celestial  beings  enthroned  on  high 
as  well  as  the  power  to  control  the  sun,  the 
weather,  the  fruitage  of  the  earth  and  the  opera- 
tions of  the  sea.  He  adds  to  this,  in  the  second 
invocation,  a  statement  that  the  gods  have  but 
grudgingly  lent  Augustus  to  the  earth  and  that  the 
loan  is  likely  to  be  recalled  at  any  time. 

Compare  with  this  Pliny's  address  to  Trajan  ^^9 

^^Georgica  I:  24-40,  soif.,  cf.  Hor.  Ode  1:2,  cf.  Preller:  Op. 
cit.,  p.  771. 
""Pan,  74.  5. 


Ruler-Cidt  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     loi 

In  which  he  asserts  that  the  state  could  Imagine 
no  addition  to  its  good  fortune:  "nisi  ut  di  Caesa- 
rem  imitentur."  Is  this  merely  oratory  or  exag- 
gerated flattery  or  genuine  adoration? 

The  climax  of  this  mode  of  address  Is  attained 
by  Lucan  ^^^  who  affirms  that  when  Nero  ascends 
to  heaven,  all  the  gods  will  yield  place  to  him  and 
allow  him  to  choose  any  sphere  of  divine  ac- 
tion which  he  prefers.  If  by  any  chance  these 
utterances  are  allowed  to  pass,  what  are  we  to 
say  of  the  oath  made  by  ^^^  "vir  praetorius"  that 
he  saw  the  form  of  Augustus  ascend  Into  heaven, 
or  that  of  the  Senator  Livius  Geminus  who  swore 
that  he  saw  Drusilla,  the  sister  and  concubine  of 
Caligula,  ascend  on  high  and  take  her  place  among 
the  gods?-^-  Ball  says:^^^  "Caligula's  crazy 
performances  as  a  divinity  obviously  brought  the 
whole  idea  of  the  imperial  deification  Into  a  de- 
gree of  disrepute,  undermining  whatever  dignity 
attached  to  its  first  august  subjects."  And  yet  the 
system  lasted  almost  two  hundred  years  after  Cal- 
igula's time  and  produced  some  of  its  most  charac- 
teristic results  in  the  later  period. 

Undermining  this  institution  was  evidently  a 
very  slow  and  difficult  process.     This,  too,  I  take 

-1:45. 

^  Suet.  Aug.,  i(x>. 

-Dio,  59:11. 

^'Satire  of  Seneca,  p.  38. 


102     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-JForship 

to  be  symptomatic,  for  I  am  much  inclined  to  think 
that  it  could  have  been  undermined  much  more 
easily  if  it  had  been  more  sincere.  At  least,  a 
partial  justification  for  this  paradox  may  be  found 
in  the  Ludus  of  Seneca  -^*  on  the  deification  of 
Claudius,  taken  in  its  historical  context. 

Taken,  I  repeat,  in  its  historical  context,  for  it 
cannot  be  understood  otherwise,  it  becomes  a  most 
suggestive  commentary  on  the  time  and  is  abso* 
lutely  a  propos.  As  Caligula  introduced  the  ele- 
ment of  mental  pathology  into  the  history  of  the 
imperial  cult,  so  Claudius  introduced  the  element 
of  farce  and  comedy.  He  was  the  cause  of  much 
wit,  good,  bad  and  indifferent,  in  others,  among 
them  the  moralist  Seneca.  The  most  interesting 
feature  of  the  situation,  however,  is  not  the  mor- 
dant treatment  of  Claudius,  but  the  side-light  it 
throws  upon  the  Roman  attitude  toward  the  great 
sanctities.  Certain  facts  are  to  be  noted  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Ludus.  Claudius  was  murdered  at  the 
order,  if  not  actually  by  the  hand,  of  Agrippina, 
the  mother  of  Nero.  Claudius  was  immediately 
deified  and  Agrippina  was  appointed  a  priestess 
to  attend  upon  the  new  divinity's  rites.  Seneca's 
brother  made  a  rather  brilliant  jest  to  the  effect 

^  This  work  seems  to  have  borne  the  title  of  ' AroKoXoK^rfrcaa-ts 
or  "pumkinification" — the  implication  of  which,  as  applied  to 
Claudius,  is  quite  obvious.  Consult  Ball :  ''The  Satire  of 
Seneca"  (N.  Y.,  1902)  for  a  complete  discussion  of  the  critical 
questions  which  center  around  the  book. 


Ruler-Cult  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     103 

tjiat  Claudius  h^i  leer.  ira^-^ti  ::  hei.  r     -  :     2. 
hook,    a'f  ><er:    ::.-:~ti        -;    :    ^    :    .    :.     : -le 
about  7r::i:.~'.'jzn.^  Dt.r.'^  z:.z  zuc.  01  l-1c  gii:  " 
But  ne: :-.     :  these  ::    .i  i.rr.rare  in  g^stlr-:: 
with  the   3.zz:.r.-r:.zr.-    ::  .irderous  wife   es 

priestess  of  Ch_i  _:  1  :r:  :-  — :  :  "15  ;- 
acccrrr'-re  'it  -'r.z  ::.:^-:  :.:m  .::  :-:-:::-  :: 
dehv.r:-,  h:,  .:.::  .  -.:....-.  -:t :. ,  -  -:.:_:;.  ^;"  :: 
the  heiacatioii.  Bu:  :J:e  reii  ^lernt^  :  : :  _  ri 
to  bring  out  is  that  ire  e_.   r     :       :   t  : :  :- 

nounced  by  the  y  s  u t:if  .^  N  r : : ,  t.  1  s  ~  : . : :  c ; .  :  7 
Seneca,  tjie  2.t::h:r  of  the  Luius.     And.  it  —is  so 

was   :he  :,;i  7":r  ivrf:  :rr.\  .:  :z:  :z::.:  .z  h  .  r:.:rr 

only  was  zit  r.t~  drvus  iL-_-rer:-:_hy  lt~r::r.ei. 
his  provincial  birth,  his  defective  speech,  his  halt- 
ing gait,  his  absent-mindedness,  his  hasty  and  fool- 
ish decisii.ts.   ah  his  idiosyncm^es  and  personal 

ceretts  r:i::uiei  ar.i  iieid  up  to  public  scorn,  but 
ti.e  ^:is  the— seies  are  ~-.iie  a  jest  of,  and  the 
— it:ie  STSte:::  ::  she::::;  ie  d:iti:-  is  turned  into 

:r ::  1  ::zz.ziy  a::i  .:.:^.\z  1  ::  ::  ::\e  rery  echo. 

Caiir.h;  ~:\:\i  :zzr:.  ::   :e  hr:^   ri  ::    .::r:ivto 


Scet.:  Xera  ;:. 
Tadras :  J tx,,  i  : .  3. 


104     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

tern  as  the  corrosive  satire  of  this  consummate  lam- 
poon. There  are  several  items  in  this  situation 
which  should  be  recalled  here.  In  spite  of  the 
ridiculous  personal  peculiarities  of  Claudius,  which 
were  a  matter  of  familiar  court  jesting,  the  deifica- 
tion went  on  according  to  the  regular  order.  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  emperor  was  about 
equally  despised  and  hated,  the  deification  was  per- 
formed according  to  the  established  ritual.  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  leading  performers  in  this 
dismal  farce  were  known  to  be  the  murderers  of 
the  late  emperor  and  the  deadliest  foes  of  his  race, 
it  yet  proceeded  according  to  rule. 

Suetonius  says -^"^  of  Claudius:  ''Funeratus  est 
sollemni  principium  pompa  et  in  numerum  deorum 
relatus;  quem  honorem  a  Nerone  destitutum  aboli- 
tum  que  recepit  mox  per  Vespasianum."  This  is 
the  whole  situation  in  pario.  What  a  curious  and 
inconsistent  fabric  of  murder  and  glorification, 
adulation  and  detraction,  fulsome  praise  and  bit- 
ter scorn,  the  whole  incident  presents !  What  it 
emphatically  does  not  present,  however,  is  genuine 
feeling  and  single-minded  devotion. 

b.      THE  GLORIFICATION  OF  BAD  MEN 

Alongside  of  this  evidence  of  decadence  must 
be  placed  another  equally  manifest.     The  system 

^^  Div.  Claudius,  45.     Dio,  60. 


Ruler-Cult  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     105 

itself  led  to  the  glorification  of  evil  men.  A  bad 
emperor  makes  a  bad  god.  The  very  choice  or 
acceptance  of  such  men  as  Nero  or  Diocletian  as 
objects  of  adoration  is  itself  a  judgment,  as  it  is 
a  revelation,  of  paganism.  And  if  it  be  asserted 
that  these  men  wore  the  purple  and  therefore  the 
people  had  no  choice  but  to  worship  them,  the  suffi- 
cient answer  is  Sejanus,  the  vile  and  treacherous 
favorite  of  Tiberius.  According  to  Dio,^^^  Ti- 
berius, solely  to  prevent  divine  honors  being  paid 
to  Sejanus,  decreed  that  henceforth  sacrifices 
should  be  offered  to  no  man,  and  included  his  own 
person  in  the  prohibition,  in  order  that  his  pur- 
pose might  not  be  defeated.  In  spite  of  all  the 
circumstances,  the  people  voted  honors  on  the 
death  of  Sejanus,  who  was  executed  by  Tiberius, 
— "solemnities,"  says  Dio,  "not  customary  even 
for  the  gods."  Sejanus  was  not  royal;  he  was 
everything  he  should  not  have  been,  and  yet  the 
popular  impulse  to  deify  him  was  beyond  imperial 
control.  The  system  as  a  whole,  together  with  the 
society  that  produced  and  fostered  it,  and  ulti- 
mately the  religion  that  molded  the  society  must 
be  held  responsible  for  the  deification  not  only  of 
Sejanus,  but  of  Poppaea  Sabina,  her  infant  daugh- 
ter who  lived  but  three  months,  of  Verus  the  col- 

^^58.8.4,   cf.   Velleius  Pater.,    2.127   for   fulsome    praise   of 
Sejanus. 


io6     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

league  of  Marcus  Aurellus,  of  Larentina,  a  public 
woman  so  notorious  that  Tertullian  expresses  the 
wish  that  any  one  of  a  number  of  such  famously- 
infamous  women  of  Rome  might  have  been  chosen 
for  such  honors  rather  than  she^^^  Simon  Ma- 
gus,^^^  and  worst  of  all,  Hadrian's  beautiful  and 
unspeakable  male  favorite,  Antinous.^-^  I  confess 
that  I  have  come  upon  few  things  in  all  history 
more  revolting  than  the  widespread  and  elaborate 
worship,  with  priests,  temples,  ritual  and  sacred 
places,  offered  to  this  blot  on  the  human  race, 
whose  very  name  and  memory  are  an  offense. ^^- 
Only  a  decadent  society,  with  a  diseased  and  mori- 
bund religiousness,  could  have  produced  such  a 
phenomenon.^^^  It  is  evident  that  a  system  capa- 
ble of  such  monstrous  perversions  as  these  men- 
tioned and  others  like  them — for  my  instances  are 
by  no  means  exhaustive — was  bound  to  demoralize 

^' Apologetica,  13. 

*^^See  Just.  Mar.,  I,  Apol.  29;  Athenagoras  Suppl.  30;  Orig. 
adv.  Celsum,  iii. 36-38;  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  IV,  8;  Tert.  adv.  Mar., 
1.18. 

^  I,  myself,  worked  through  the  list  of  flamens  or  priests 
of  Antinous,  and  found  the  following  astonishing  number: 
C.  I.  G.,  280.     II 19,  1.   II,  Aioi^iJaios  natai/teiJs  ikphvs  Avtivoov. 

1121,  1.  23, 

1 122,  1.  42, 

1128,  1.  19,  1.  30,  speaks  of  Hadrian  as  a  god. 
1216, 

1 120,  1.  27,  priest  of  Antinous. 
1131,  1.  4, 
^'  Cf.  what  Pliny  says  about  earlier  consecrations  in  Paneg., 
II. 


Ruler-Cult  and  the  Position  of  the  Emperor     107 

and  weaken  religion.  Religion,  which  is  a  rela- 
tionship between  man  and  the  object  of  his  wor- 
ship, rises  or  falls  necessarily  with  the  dignity  and 
worth  of  that  object.  An  evil  deity  involves  the 
swift  and  utter  demoralization  of  his  worshipers; 
and  the  final  and  hopeless  collapse  of  paganism, 
with  all  its  prestige,  organic  fitness  and  official 
power  was  due  in  some  measure  to  this  system, 
which,  as  I  have  already  said,  was  at  once  its  cul- 
mination and  its  ruin.  We  have  now  to  trace  that 
process. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE    RULER-CULT   AND   POLYTHEISM 

I.     The  Self-Contradiction  of  Polytheism 

POLYTHEISM  has  two  fundamental  weak- 
nesses which  contributed  concurrently  to  the 
establishment  and  rapid  advance  of  the  Emperor- 
cult.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  essentially  contra- 
dictory in  that  it  distributes  among  many,  divine 
qualities  and  functions  which  logically  belong  to 
one  only.  The  concept  of  deity  is  itself  funda- 
mentally unitary.  When  the  Babylonians,  for  ex- 
ample,— to  take  one  instance  where  hundreds  are 
available,— called  Bel,  "Lord  of  all  being,"  224 
they  implicitly  denied  the  existence  of  any  other  to 
whom  such  a  title  can  properly  be  applied.  When, 
therefore,  the  polytheists  do  actually  apply  that 
title  to  a  multitude  of  deities,  an  element  of  con- 
fusion is  at  once  introduced  which  is  never  wholly 
extruded. 

^^  Cf.  Titles  of  Snefru,  p.  22,  n.  15,  and  the  judicious  remarks 
of  Fairbanks:  Greek  Religion,  pp.  23,24. 

108 


The  Ruler-Ciilt  and  Polytheism         109 

Polytheism  Is  always  driven  by  a  gad-fly  of  un- 
rest, seeking  and  never  finding  an  ultimate  center 
and  pole,  around  which  thought  and  life  may 
steadfastly  and  harmoniously  revolve.  The  mono- 
thelst  has  this  center — the  polytheist  never.  His 
thought  Is  chaotic  because  the  world,  as  he  con- 
ceives It,  Is  directed  by  a  plurality  of  wills  which 
do  not  offer  any  secure  guarantee  of  cosmic  har- 
mony. His  life  Is  distracted  because  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  finding  any  god  or  group  of  gods  adequate 
to  his  changing  needs  or  realized  with  sufficient 
clearness  of  definition  to  meet  any  of  his  deeper 
longings. 

The  polytheist.  In  other  words,  is  always  on  the 
search  for  the  ultimate — a  final,  secure  resting- 
place  of  faith  and  confidence — which  does  not  be- 
long to  the  system. 

The  polytheist,  therefore.  Is  essentially  migra- 
tory and  his  system  of  thought  and  worship  is  in 
constant  flux.  He  selects  some  deities  to  the  neg- 
lect of  others.  He  abandons  one  and  takes  up 
another.  TertuUIan  ^-^  makes  powerful  apolo- 
getic use  of  this  habit  of  selection  and  shifting  of 
allegiance,  which,  as  he  says,  if  the  gods  were  real 
beings  would  Involve  a  truly  impious  degree  of 
irreverence.    It  is  inevitable,  as  all  history  proves. 

*"  Apologetica,  13. 


no     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

2.     Polytheism  Essentially  Elementary  and 
Inadequate 

Along  with  this  tendency,  is  another  equally- 
powerful,  to  outgrow  the  gods  one  has  at  any 
given  stage  of  life.  Tiele  says  that  the  develop- 
ment of  religion  is  a  phase  of  deepening  self-con- 
sciousness. The  gods  of  the  traditional  Gr^co- 
Roman  pantheon  were  outgrown  in  many  ways  by 
their  worshipers  in  the  age  of  the  empire.  I 
shall  take  just  one  phase  of  change,  as  particu- 
larly germane  at  this  point.  The  traditional  gods 
were  essentially  personified  nature-powers.  In 
the  course  of  time,  especially  in  the  period  of  the 
City-state,  certain  additional  social  and  economic 
functions  were  ascribed  to  these  simple  and  rather 
dimly  conceived  deities, -^^  but  they  still  remained 
essentially  nature-powers.  They  were  gods  of  the 
open  air,  of  the  outer  world;  related  to  the  sky, 
the  forests,  the  mountains,  the  fields,  the  biology 
of  the  seasons,  war  and  the  other  common  human 
experiences  of  human  life  from  birth  to  death. 
Such  were  the  traditional  gods  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple and  so  far  as  the  native  religious  genius  of 
the  people  had  expression,  such  were  their  gods  to 
the  latest  period  of  their  history.     The  importa- 

^On  the  early  gods  of  Rome  see  Fowler:  R.  F.,  pp.  34f; 
R.  E.  R.  P.,  pp.  ii8f,  i47f;  Mythology  of  all  Races,  Vol.  I. 
part  III. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         1 1 1 

tion  of  foreign  cults  began  early  and  went  on  with 
increasing  momentum  during  the  period  of  im- 
perial expansion,  but  none  of  these  imported  sys- 
tems took  very  deep  root  or  found  a  really  con- 
genial environment.  The  development  of  the 
imperial  system,  the  rise  of  a  world-consciousness, 
showed  the  narrowness,  the  jejune  inadequacy  of 
the  old  system.  The  old  parochial  gods  were  im- 
possible in  the  empire — even  the  Olympians  were 
hedged  and  confined  by  local  cults  and  identifica- 
tions. The  newly  elaborated  imperial-cult,  grafted, 
as  we  have  seen,  into  the  most  ancient  stock  of 
Roman  religion,  of  Roma,  the  divi  and  the  Genius 
of  the  living  emperor,  fitted  the  times  and  was 
seemingly  the  inevitable  outcome  of  the  situation. 
When  the  whole  world  was  a  parish,  and  that  in 
the  country,  or  even  a  City-state  set  on  seven  hills, 
parochial,  outdoor  or  local  deities  were  sufficient; 
when  the  parish  expanded  to  a  world  the  old  sys- 
tem was  bound  to  go. 

3.    Emperor-Worship  the  Final  Phase  of 
Paganism 

This  change  was  the  more  inevitable  because 
that  old  system  was  breaking  down  intrinsically. 
The  story  of  the  disintegration  of  the  traditional 
Graeco-Roman  religion  has  been  told  often  enough 


112     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

and  well  enough  and  needs  no  re-telling  here.  A 
concurrence  of  contributing  influences,  internal  and 
external,  brought  about  that  downfall — most  of 
all,  its  inherent  inadequacy  together  with  the  im- 
pact of  a  new  and  infinitely  better  system.  What 
one  must  do,  however,  is  to  visualize  this  process 
of  disintegration  and  re-integration  in  terms  of 
the  emperor  cult.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  imperial  cult  was  the  characteristic  and  es- 
sential product  of  religion  in  the  era  in  which  it 
arose.  The  internal  movement  of  contemporary 
paganism  is  to  be  understood  only  through  a  study 
of  this  development,  which  is  its  organic  self-man- 
ifestation. 

a.    THE    SUPERSESSION   OF   THE   OLYMPIANS 

A  graphic  presentation  of  the  point  I  have  in 
mind  is  to  be  found  in  the  great  Paris  cameo,  which 
represents  Tiberius  and  his  family  as  a  group  of 
gods.  Tiberius  appears  as  Jupiter,  his  mother 
Livia  as  Ceres,  while  around  him  are  Germanicus, 
Antonia,  Gains  Caligula  and  Agrippina.  Augus- 
tus is  rising  to  heaven  on  a  winged  horse;  iEneas 
is  handing  him  a  globe  representing  the  world, 
Drusus  sweeps  through  heaven  bearing  a  shield — 
which  means,  I  suppose,  the  Roman  triumph — 
and,  at  the  celestial  summit  of  the  glorified  group. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         113 

sits  the  Divus  Julius,  wearing  the  crown  which 
he  declined  on  earth.  In  order  to  understand  this 
significant  group,  one  or  two  Items  must  be  kept  In 
mind.  In  the  process  of  deification,  as  we  have 
already  noticed,  the  various  recipients  of  divine 
honors  are  frequently  given  the  names  of  various 
well-known  deities,  such  as  Mars,  Dionysus,  Jupi- 
ter, and  others.  To  take  an  example  from  a  later 
time,  which  Is  typical  all  the  way,  the  worship  of 
Hadrian  was  connected  with  the  contemporary 
pan-Hellenic  revival  of  which  he  was  the  patron. 
There  was  a  temple  foundation  to  Hadrian  at 
Athens,  with  games  and  priestly  service.  He  was 
known  as  the  "New  Zeus  pan-Hellenlos"  and  was 
called  the  "founding,  living  god."  ^-'^  In  the  light 
of  this,  turn  to  the  cameo.  Of  the  earlier  figures 
of  mythology,  only  a  little  cupid  guiding  'the 
winged  horse  on  which  Augustus  ascends  to 
heaven,  and  Nemesis,  In  the  back-ground,  appear 
in  propria  persona.  The  Olympian  deities  as  per- 
sonal beings  have  simply  ceased  to  be.  They  have 
become  abstractions  and  in  evaporating  into  the 
functions    which    they    represent   they   have    be- 

^  See  Mommsen :  Rom.  Gesch.,  B.  V.,  p.  244.  For  the  ex- 
tent of  this  cult  note  the  following  inscriptions: 

C.  I.  G.,  3832,  5852. 

C.  I.  A.,  Ill,  lo,  16,  21,  34a  in  which  Hadrian  is  called  "son 
of^the  God  Trajan,"  38,  253,  486,  519,  528,  in  which  he  is 
called  "vi6s   d^ov,"  534,  681,  1023,  1128,  1306. 

C/.  C.  I.  L.,  XIV,  73,  353. 


114     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

queathed  their  insignia  of  office  to  their  living, 
active,  historical,  royal  successors.  Their  robes 
are  empty,  their  thrones  unoccupied,  their  scepters 
abandoned,  their  crowns  doffed  and  laid  aside,  to 
be  taken  up,  worn,  used,  and  wielded  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  royal  house.  It  is  evident  that  if  any 
real  faith  in  the  Olympians  remained,  this  cameo 
picture  would  be  a  frightful  blasphemy.  On  the 
other  hand,  if,  as  Euhemerus  and  the  Christian 
fathers  "^^  maintained,  the  Olympian  gods  were 
originally  men,  glorified  into  deities  and  then  evap- 
orated into  abstractions,  as  some  of  them  undoubt- 
edly were,  then  the  balance  would  simply  be  re- 
dressed by  inverting  the  process  and  investing 
them  with  personality,  by  connecting  them  with 
rulers  who,  whether  they  were  divine  or  not,  were 
certainly  real,  personal  and  active.  At  any  rate, 
this  supersession  of  the  older  gods  by  these  new 
deities  was  the  characteristic  last  phase  of  ancient 
paganism.  Philostratus  says  that  the  statues  of 
Tiberius  were  looked  upon  as  being  more  sacred 
and  inviolate  than  those  of  Zeus  in  Olympia,  so 
that  It  was  an  impiety  to  strike  a  slave  carrying 
a  drachma  stamped  with  the  imperial  image.  This 
is  echoed  and  Interpreted  by  Tertullian,  who  says : 

*"TertulHan:  Apol.  lo.  According  to  Lactantius  {De  falso 
Religione,  i  :2o)  the  goddess  Flora  was  a  deified  Roman  prosti- 
tute and  some  of  the  rites  connected  with  her  worship  would 
aeem  to  justify  the  opinion. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         115 

"You  do  homage  with  a  greater  dread  and  in- 
tenser  reverence  to  Caesar  than  to  Olympian  Jove 
himself.  And  if  you  knew  it,  upon  sufficient 
grounds;  for  is  not  any  living  man  better  than 
a  dead  one  whoever  he  may  be?"  -^^ 

b.      THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MITHRA  AND  APOLLO 

Another  most  striking  illustration  of  this  ab- 
sorbing and  superseding  power  of  the  emperor- 
cult  is  to  be  found  in  connection  with  the  history 
of  the  Mithra  worship  among  the  Romans.  We 
now  take  up  the  story  of  the  king-cult  in  ancient 
Iran  where  we  previously  laid  it  down.^^^  It  is 
necessary  to  reaffirm  the  statement  there  made  that 
the  theory  of  the  hvareno  or  divine  glory  involves 
a  genuine  apotheosis.  Prof.  Dill  says^^^  and  in 
so  saying  echoes  Cumont:  "The  Persians  pros- 
trated themselves  before  their  kings  but  they  did 
not  actually  adore  them  as  gods."  In  support  of 
this  statement  he  quotes  Athenagoras  ^^^  who 
speaks  of  the  Persian  veneration  of  the  Aatjucov 
of  the  king  which  Dill  equates  with  the  'Genius' 
of  the  Romans.    It  is  contended  that  direct  apothe- 

=^Appol.  Ty.,  1.15. 

Tertullian:  Apol.  27.  Tertullian,  of  course,  was  an  Euhemer- 
ist  so  far  as  the  pagan  gods  were  concerned. 

^^^  See  above,  p.  20. 

^^  Roman  Society  Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  p.  617,  Cumont: 
Myst.  of  Mithra,  Fr.  Ed.,  p.  79. 

^'VI,  252- 


ii6     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

osis  is  avoided  by  the  mediate  address  of  worship 
to  the  royal  daimon  or  genius.  As  we  have  seen 
the  practical  result  of  this  conventional  device 
among  the  Romans  was  the  full  and  unqualified 
deification  of  the  ruler.-^^  So  it  was  also  among 
the  Persians.  Moreover,  Dill's  opinion  cannot  be 
supported  by  an  appeal  to  the  Zend  Avesta.  The 
facts  are  these:  Undoubtedly,  Zoroastrianism  or 
Mazdaism  began  as  a  monotheistic  movement  or, 
perhaps,  I  ought  to  say  more  strictly  an  anti-poly- 
theistic and  unifying  trend,  but  for  many  centuries 
it  failed  to  conquer  or  assimilate  the  polytheism 
which  it  attempted  to  displace. 

In  fact,  Zarathustra  himself  was  deified.  Dar- 
mesteter  says  emphatically:  -^^  "All  the  features  in 
Zarathustra  point  to  a  god."  As  we  have  already 
seen,  the  Persian  kings  were  assimilated  to  the 
divine  status  of  Zarathustra  himself  through  their 
common  possession  with  him  of  the  hvareno  or 
divine  glory,  which  is  by  no  means  a  mere  halo  or 
aureole  surrounding  the  king  but  a  substantial 
divine  element  at  once  physical  and  transcendental 
which  is  derived  ultimately  from  Ahura  Mazda 
but  secondarily  by  a  miracle  from  Zarathustra 
himself.    And  here  there  is  discoverable  a  definite 

^^'Minucius  Felix  says  (Oct.,  XXIX,  5,  Halm's  ed.)  that  it 
was  "tutius  per  lovis  genium  peierare  quam  regis." 

^*For  the  place  of  Zarathustra  in  Mazdaism,  see  S.  B.  E., 
Vol.  IV,  Int.,  Sec.  40. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         117 

line  of  historic  connection  between  these  ideas  of 
ancient  Iran  and  the  Roman  system  of  deification. 

Among  the  gods  common  to  the  Indo-Iranian 
peoples  before  their  separation  was  Mitra,  who 
was  frequently  invoked  together  with  Varuna,  and 
also  less  frequently  with  Indra.-^^  Mitra  is  evi- 
dently the  sun-god,  as  he  is  identified  as  the  light 
of  Varuna,  the  sky-god. 

In  the  Avesta,  Mitra  appears  as  Mithra.  The 
Identification  Is  evident  both  from  the  name  and 
the  identical  attributes.  While  these  attributes  are 
much  more  clearly  defined  in  the  Avesta  they  are 
evidently  the  same.  The  conventional  title  of  this 
deity  is  "lord  of  wide  pastures."  ^^^ 

Mithra  is  the  almost  exclusive  subject  of  Yast 
X,^^^  one  of  the  longest  In  the  Avesta,  and  is  ad- 
dressed in  the  Mlhir  Nyayis.^^^  The  position  of 
Mithra  in  later  Mazdaism  and  his  identity  with 
Mitra  In  the  Vedic  system  as  well  as  his  relation- 
ship to  Ahura  Mazda  in  the  Avestic  system  Indi- 
cate clearly  that  he  is  a  survivor  of  ancient  poly- 
theism who  refused  to  be  absorbed  In  the  unifying 
movement. 

In  the  course  of  time,  all  these  surviving  gods 

^  Hymns  of  the  Atharva  Veda,  11:28.     Cf.  S.  B.  E.,  vol.  42, 
suh.  <voc. 
^'Venidad:  Fargard,  III,  I.i. 
=^  Mihir  Yast. 

238 

353,  355- 


Ii8     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

were  brought,  more  or  less  completely,  under 
Ahura  Mazda  ^^^  but  MIthra  remained  god  by 
deputy  until  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Of  him 
Ahura  Mazda  is  represented  as  saying:  "I  cre- 
ated him  as  worthy  of  sacrifice,  as  worthy  of 
prayer  as  myself."  ^'^^ 

Again  ^^^  he  is  spoken  of  as  the  guardian  of 
truth  and  avenger  of  lies,  "awful,  overpowering, 
worthy  of  sacrifice  and  prayer,  not  to  be  deceived 
anywhere  in  the  whole  material  world,"  and  as 
"the  strong  heavenly  god."  -*-  This  is  manifestly 
syncretism  with  the  seams  not  very  smoothly 
ironed  out.  Mithra  is  alien  to  Mazdaism  but  is 
artificially  included  in  it. 

The  importance  of  Mithra  for  my  purpose  lies 
in  his  relationship  to  the  imperial  system  at  Rome. 
The  deification  of  Zarathustra  and  his  reputed 
successors  on  the  throne  of  Iran  is  immediately 
and  inseparably  connected  with  the  separate  wor- 
ship of  Mithra,  the  sun-god,  as  the  revelation  and 
embodiment  of  the  remote  and  dimly  conceived 
Ahura  Mazda.  The  kings  were  related  to  Ahura 
Mazda  in  much  the  same  fashion  as  Mithra  him- 
self and  were,  so  to  say,  congeners  of  the  sun- 
god,  sharing  with  him  the  nature  and  glory  of 

^''  S.  B.  E.,  vol.  IV,  Int.,  pp.  LIX  ff. 
""^Yast,  XI,  I. 
"^Jbid.,  1.5. 
'"/^i^.,  XXXIII. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         119 

Ahura  Mazda.  The  worship  of  Mithra  finally 
separated  itself  from  the  Mazdean  system  as  a 
whole  and  entered  upon  a  history  of  its  own. 
With  the  Persian  conquest,  it  began  a  westward 
movement  and  by  way  of  Babylon,  Greece  and 
the  Greek  Settlements  of  Asia  Minor,  came  to 
Rome.  It  seems  to  have  been  brought  by  return- 
ing legionaries  from  the  Orient  and  by  migrating 
citizens  from  incorporated  provinces  formerly  un- 
der Persian  and  Greek  rule  and  spread  through 
the  Empire  until  it  became  a  powerful  factor  in 
its  later  religious  life.  In  the  course  of  this  long 
migration  the  Mithra  cult  gathered  to  itself  many 
strange  elements;  astrology,  demonism  and  plan- 
etary fatalism  from  Babylon;  ritual  and  symbol- 
ism from  Phrygia;  mysticism  from  Alexandria; 
personification  and  plastic  representation  from 
the  Greeks,  so  that  finally  when  it  arrived  at 
Rome  it  had  become  the  most  inclusive  syncretism 
the  world  had  ever  seen.  In  spite,  however,  of 
this  drag-net  feature  of  its  progress,  the  core  of 
the  Persian  sun-worship  in  Mithraism  remained 
unchanged.  It  is  said  that  the  name  of  Mithra  was 
never  translated. 

It  reached  Rome,  if  the  one  slight  notice  we 
have  is  to  be  accepted,  in  70  B.C.  with  the  Cicilian 
pirates  conquered  by  Pompey.^^^    Little  is  known 

'^^ Plutarch:  Pompey,  c.  24. 


120     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

of  the  system,  except  that  it  seems  first  to  have 
spread  among  the  lowly,  until  the  period  of  the 
Antonines,  probably  because  the  movement  really 
did  not  get  under  way  until  the  incorporation  of 
Cappadocia,  Pontus  and  Commagene,  where  its 
centers  were,  a  process  which  was  not  completed 
until  the  reign  of  Vespasian. 

In  the  course  of  time,  it  swept  the  empire  and 
left  behind  it  abundant  monumental  and  epigraphic 
testimony  to  its  spread  and  power.  It  lasted  in 
out-of-the-way  places  until  the  fifth  century. 

The  most  striking  fact  in  this  whole  romantic 
history,  however,  is  yet  to  be  told;  namely,  that 
this  world-movement,  sweeping  in  from  every  di- 
rection upon  Rome,  the  most  comprehensive  and 
powerful  revival  of  paganism  in  all  its  phases 
known  to  history,  which  was  thought  by  many  to 
threaten  the  very  life  of  Christianity  itself,  was, 
in  the  final  outcome,  hitched  to  the  chariots  of  the 
Cssars  and  made  the  theoretical  justification  of 
emperor  worship.  The  blending  of  Mithraism 
with  the  imperial  cult  probably  began  in  a  tenta- 
tive and  secret  way  under  Tiberius  and  found 
open  expression  in  the  reigns  of  Caligula  and 
Nero,  both  of  w^hom  w^ere  made  solar  deities  in 
the  East. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  underground  prepara- 
tion for  the  final  union  of  these  two  systems  began 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         ill 

long  before  this.  In  the  year  40  B.C.  occurred 
the  famous  "dinner  of  the  twelve  gods"  at  which, 
according  to  the  lampooner  of  the  occasion,  "Im- 
pia  dum  Phoebi  Caesar  mendacia  ludit."^*^  This 
w^as,  perhaps,  not  a  serious  presentation  of  him- 
self in  the  character  of  Apollo  by  Augustus  but 
later  developments  show  that  it  remained  in  his 
thought.  In  the  year  28  B.C.  Augustus  initiated 
a  revival  of  the  Apollo  cult  by  the  dedication  of 
a  new  and  magnificent  temple  to  Apollo  on  the 
Palatine,  and  in  the  library  hard-by,  he  set  up  a 
statue  of  himself  adorned  with  the  attributes  of 
Apollo. ^^^  This  movement  toward  the  identifica- 
tion of  himself  with  the  Apolline  and  sun-worship 
culminated  in  the  Ludi  Saeculares  of  the  year  17 
B.C.  In  the  course  of  this  ceremony  the  carmen 
of  Horace,  written  at  the  dictation  of  Augustus, 
was  sung  by  a  chorus  of  boys  and  girls  facing  the 
great  temple  of  Apollo  "in  quo  soils  erat  supra 
fastigia  currus."  -^^  To  the  sun  thus  represented 
the  lines  beginning  "Alme  Sol,  curru  nitido  diem- 
que"  -^^  w^ere  addressed,  and  a  little  later  Augus- 

'■^Suet.:  Aug.,  LXX. 

^  The  Scholium  of  Servius  (ad  BucoL,  IV:io)  says:  "Tuus 
iam  regnat  Apollo,  ultimum  saeculura  ostendit,  quod  Sibylla 
Solis  esse  memoravit  et  tangit  Augustum  cui  simulacrum  factum 
est  cum  Apollinis  cunctis  insignibus."  Augustus  bore  the  title 
"Son  of  Apollo" — cf.,  Gardthausen:  Augustus  und  Seine  Zeit: 
I,  p.  46,  II,  p.  15,  n8;  i6,  119,  580,  Horace:  Odes  III:  XIV. 

-^  Propertius,  111:28. 

**^  Carmen  Saeculare,   9,    50. 


122      /Ispccls   of  Roman  Kmperor-JVorship 

tus  himself  is  brought  forward  in  a  skillful  allu- 
sion to  the  Julian  family, — tlie  never  forgotten 
"Clarus  Anchisae  Veneris(iue  San^^uis."  i'owler 
well  says  (hat  "the  listeners  for^^et  the  Capitolinc 
^ocls  as  they  note  the  allusion  to  Venus"  and  the 
world-wide  "prestige  of  Augustus."  ^'^ 

In  this  way  the  worshij)  of  Apollo  I  lelios  was 
subordinated  to  the  emperor  cult  and  in  due  time 
the  allied  JVIitlira  sun-worship  suHered  the  same 
fate."'''  In  a  well-known  passaj;^c  of  Dio  already 
(juoted,  'liridates  is  represented  as  greeting  Nero 
as  JVlithra,  while  this  emperor  and  his  successors 
are  represented  as  wearing  an  imperial  crown  with 
darting  sun-rays.  J'he  J'lmperor  dallienus  is  said 
to  have  gone  about  clothed  in  a  complete  set  of 
vestments  symboli/.ing  the  sun-god. -''•''  The  later 
emperors  took  the  solar  titles  "Dominus  et  Dcus 
Natus"  which  makes  them  manifestations  or  "de- 
scents" of  the  sun-deity.  This  god  comes  down 
from  heaven  to  earth  in  the  person  of  the  em- 
peror. It  is  (juite  possible  that  the  mysterious 
I'Ortuna  worship  which  also  merges  into  the 
emperor  cult  (the  phrase  "i'Ortuna  Po])uli  Ro- 
mani"    becomes    "lM)rtuna    Augusti"    from    Vcs- 


■""R.  f:.  r.  p.,  p.  4.,r,. 

**"]!  is  to  be  r<rncml)ci<(l  ih.it  Apollo  and  Mithra  had  al- 
ready htcii  coinhinrd  amoiijjj  ilic  Circcks — see  Farnell,  op.  cit., 
IV,    i-X    II.    6;    nS    II.    a. 

"""'Irtbcllius  I'ollio:  Gal.,   i6:i8. 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism         123 

pasian's  time)  may  have  been  another  form  of 
sun-worship.--'^  However  that  may  be,  the  other 
undoubted  forms  of  heholatry,  inckiding  Mithra- 
ism,  certainly  were  assimilated  by  the  emperor 
cult.  Commodus  (180-192  A.D.)  was  an  initiate 
both  of  Isis  and  Mithra  and  assumed  the  Mith- 
raic  titles  "Aeternus"  and  "Jnvictus."  -"'-  "''•'  1  his 
is  the  final  and  official  step  in  the  imperial 
assumption  of  deific  solar  prerogatives.  Hence- 
forth emperor  worship  and  solar  worship  were 
identical.  As  Harnack  sums  it  up:  ^'\n  the  third 
century  Rome  was  simply  the  headquarters  of  the 
Mithra  cult,  in  which  and  with  which  the  emperor 
was  worshiped  as  co-essential  with  the  sun,  'con- 
substantivum  Soli.'"  As  in  earliest  Egypt  so  In 
latest  Rome,  the  ruler  was  the  embodiment  and 
revelation  on  earth  of  the  sun-god.  This  was  the 
last  and  greatest  victory  of  the  ruler-cult.  It  fell 
only  when  paganism  as  a  whole  fell  under  the  vic- 
torious onset  of  Christianity.  Within  paganism 
itself  emperor  worship  was  the  final  development. 
For  this  there  is  a  deep  basic  reason  in  the  very 
nature  of  things. 

'"Fowler:  R.  F.,  p.  169.     Cj.  Plut:  de  Fort.  Romae,  IV. 

""Dio,  XLTI,   15:5. 

^''^  Praclically  the  entire  corpus  of  li(crary  and  epigraphic 
texis,  (()}j;('(lit'r  with  the  rnonuineiital  remains  of  Mithraistn,  are 
cited  with  a  complete  critical  apparatus  for  the  understand- 
\u^  of  (hem  by  C'umont  (see  bibliography  infra.  Dill  gives  a 
good  summary — op.  cit.,  ch.  VI). 


124     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

4.     Polytheism  and  Pantheism 

Polytheism  Is  always  rooted  In  pantheism. -^^ 
Naturism — that  Is,  the  Immediate  worship  of  nat- 
ural objects  and  powers,  conceived  Individually, 
personified  and  deified — always  carries  with  It  as 
an  Implicit  and  often  unconscious  premise,  the  di- 
vinity of  the  world  as  a  whole.  Philosophic  or 
self-conscious  pantheism,  which  Is  for  the  few  w^ho 
are  capable  of  dealing  with  abstractions  or  gen- 
eralizations, always  has  underground  connection 
with  polytheism, — the  popular  aspect  of  the  same 
world  view.^^^ 

^^*  On  the  pantheism  of  the  whole  polytheistic  system  consult 
Harrison:  Themis,  passim,  particularly  Ch.  X.  The  data  pre- 
sented in  this  somewhat  confusing  book  are  to  be  sharply  dis- 
criminated  from  the  theories   erected  upon   them. 

^^  See  Fairbairn:  Philosophy  of  the  Christian  Religion,  pp. 
24if.  Cf.  Bigg:  Origins  of  Christianit}-,  p.  304.  That  even 
Stoic  pantheism  leads  in  the  direction  of  deification  is  well  ex- 
hibited in  the  following  from  Cicero's  Somnium  Scipionis 
(De  Republica,  Ch.  XXIV,  26),  "Deum  te  igitur  scito  esse,  si 
quidem  est  deus,  qui  viget,  qui  sentit,  qui  meminit,  qui  pro- 
videt,  qui  tam  vegit  et  moderatur  et  movet  id  corpus,  cui 
praepositus  est,  quam  hunc  mundum  ille  princeps  deus,"  etc. 

The  practical  impossibility  of  escaping  the  power  of  the 
man-cult  for  any  one  reared  in  the  pagan  system,  however 
enlightened  and  intellectual,  is  thus  strikingly  illustrated  in 
the  case  of  Cicero.  Collating  the  citations  already  made  from 
Cicero,  we  have  the  following  curious  result.  Divine  honors 
for  himself,  "nisi  verborum,"  he  declined  and  he  was  about 
equally  angered  and  disgusted  by  the  developments  of  the 
Julian-cult;  but,  when  his  daughter  Tullia  died,  he  persistently 
held  to  the  idea  of  erecting  a  fane  to  her  as  a  divine  being  and 
in  the  mystic  mood  of  the  Somnium  Scipionis  he  developed  the 
idea  that  man  is  a  deity  differing  only  in  degree  from  *'ille 
princeps  deus  qui  mundum  regit." 


The  Ruler-Cult  and  Polytheism        125 

The  swing  from  one  aspect  of  nature  to  another 
in  the  polytheist's  ceaseless  and  feverish  hunt  for 
the  ultimate — to  which  allusion  has  already  been 
made — is  bound  to  bring  him  around  to  man  as 
the  final  term  in  the  natural  process  which  he  rec- 
ognizes as  divine. 

Naturism,  which  constantly  tends  to  lose  its  arti- 
ficial content  of  personality  and  become  imper- 
sonal and  abstract,  both  develops  and  reacts  into 
the  personalism  of  man-worship. ^^^  This  justifies 
the  brilliant  generalization  of  Boissieu:  "C'etait 
le  terme  inevitable  auquel  devait  aboutir  le  pan- 
theisme  antique,  et,  idole  pour  idole,  le  dernier  des 
vivants,  comme  dit  Tertullian,  etait  preferable  au 
plus  illustre  mort."  ^^^  The  individual  object  wor- 
shiped is  part  of  a  larger  whole,  which  in  its 
totality  is  divine,  but,  undivided,  is  too  vast  and 
vague  to  worship. 

^^®  Buddhism,  Confucianism,  and  Comtian  phenomenal  Posi- 
tivism, all  three  attempts  to  substitute  impersonal  forces  or 
abstract  principles  for  the  personalism  of  religion  have,  in  the 
end,  reverted  to  the  personalism  against  which  they  were  prin- 
cipally framed.  On  the  transformation  of  nature-powers  into 
men  of  heroic  dimensions  see  Reville:  Hibbert  Lectures  for  1884 
(N.  Y.,  '84)  p.  206.  On  the  combination  of  nature-powers  and 
deified  men  see  Moore:  Hist,  of  Religions,  p.  95;  Harrison: 
Themis,  pp.  445,  6. 

^^Ins.  de  Lyon,  p.  51. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  RULER-CULT  AND  THE  JUD.^O-CHRISTIAN 
MOVEMENT 

I.    The  Jews  and  Emperor-worship 

THE  transition  from  the  decadent  paganism 
of  the  emperor  cult  to  the  contemporary- 
thought  and  worship  of  the  Jews  is  the  entrance 
into  a  new  world.^^^  It  would  be  dijfficult  to  exag- 
gerate the  sense  of  relief  which  one  feels  in  pass- 
ing from  the  heated,  artificial,  incense-laden  at- 
mosphere of  this  court  worship  into  the  larger  and 
freer  thought  of  the  worshipers  of  Jehovah.  The 
difference  between  the  self-inclosed  pagan  thought, 
which  changes  from  deity  to  deity  but  never  es- 
capes from  a  system  bounded  by  nature  on  the 
one  hand,  and  man  on  the  other,  to  the  thought  of 
those  whose  God  is  a  universal,  invisible,  spiritual 
and  ethical  personality  can  best  be  realized  by  a 

^^The  generally  fair  record  of  the  Jews  in  regard  to  the 
emperor  cult  has  one  spot  on  it.  In  Akmonia  the  High-priestess 
of  Augustus  was  a  Jewess,  and  built  the  Jews  a  synagogue. 
Jews  were  in  office  when  the  coin  to  Poppaea  was  struck — Ram- 
say: Op.  cit.,  I,  pp.  637-640,  649-51;  cf.  Philo:  Flaccum,  7; 
Legatio  ad  Gaium,  20. 

126 


Ruler-Cult  and  Judao-Christian  Movement     127 

concrete  Instance.  Caligula's  officials  in  Alexan- 
dria forcibly  put  images  into  the  largest  of  the 
Alexandrian  temples.  A  delegation  headed  by 
Philo  was  sent  to  the  Emperor  Caligula  in  the 
year  39-40  A.D.  While  this  delegation  of  five 
distinguished  men  was  actually  in  Italy,  Caligula 
ordered  his  own  representative,  Petronius,  to  put 
up  his  image  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 

The  members  of  the  delegation  presented  them- 
selves before  the  emperor,  were  put  off  at  first, 
then  were  received  with  insults;  but  the  point  is 
that,  when  Caligula  tried  to  force  them  to  worship 
him,  they  refused  and  their  resistance,  though  cour- 
teously expressed,  was  so  inflexible  that  Caligula 
had  to  yield.  Capricious,  tyrannical  and  vicious 
though  he  was,  he  could  not  browbeat  nor  bend 
these  men,  who  refused  to  bow  the  knee  in  the 
presence  of  this  new  idol,  as  their  ancestors  had 
refused  to  bow  before  the  image  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar. The  baffled  emperor  saved  his  face  by  de- 
claring: ov   TTOvqpoi  fxaWov  ri  8v(7TVX^ls  ^vdi  ixoi  boKovaiv 

avdpOJTTOL  KCLl  CLVOTJTOLy    CtC."^^ 

2.   Christianity  and  Emperor-worship 

The  anti-pagan  movement  which  ultimately  de- 
stroyed the  emperor  cult,  with  cognate  forms  of 

^* Philo:  Legatio  ad  Gaium,  11,  35,  43,  43. 


128     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

paganism,  began  with  the  Jews,  among  whom 
Christianity,  which  was  the  heir  of  Jewish  mono- 
theism, was  cradled.  Christianity  made  use  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  and  was  powerfully  molded  by 
them.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  Christianity 
which  freed  the  essential  Jewish  teaching  from  its 
particularism  and  made  it  a  world-power.  It  was 
not  Judaism  which  was  called  upon  to  resist  to 
the  death  the  pan-Roman  Imperial  system,  but 
Christianity.  The  reason  for  this  is  not  far  to 
seek. 


a.    THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  IMPERIAL- 
CULT 

The  founder  of  Christianity  was  born  under 
Augustus  and  crucified  under  Tiberius.  The  last 
survivor  of  His  immediate  disciples  suffered  under 
Domitian  in  the  last  decade  of  the  first  century. 

By  the  time  of  Valentinianus,  and  midway  of 
the  fifth  century,  the  emperor  cult  had  lost  its 
power,  although  the  official  frame-work  of  it  still 
stood.  Meanwhile,  nominally  Christian  emper- 
ors like  Constantine  had  been  officially  divi  and 
had  winked  at  the  continuance  of  the  pagan  fam- 
ily ritual  which  coupled  their  names  with  those  of 
the  gods. 

An  alleged  Christian  writer,  at  the  end  of  the 


Ruler-Ciilt  and  Judceo-Christian  Movement     129 

period  now  under  review,  could  write:  (milites) 
"jurant  autem  per  Deum,  et  per  Christum,  et  per 
Spiritum  Sanctum,  et  per  majestatem  Imperatoris, 
quae  secundum  Deum  generi  humano  diligenda  est 
et  colenda.  Nam  Imperatori,  cum  Augusti  nomen 
accepit,  tamquam  praesenti  et  corporali  Deo  fidelis 
est  praestanda  devotio,  et  impendendus  pervigil 
famulatus."  -^^  He  vainly  tries  to  soften  this  evi- 
dent compromise  with  paganism  by  saying:  *'He 
serves  God  who  faithfully  honors  him  who  rules 
by  the  authority  of  God." 

It  is  evident  enough  that  the  system  died  slowly 
and  died  hard,  but  at  last  it  died.  Between  the  dei- 
fication of  Julius  Caesar  and  the  final  dissolution 
of  the  structure  whose  corner-stone  was  laid  in 
that  deification, ^^^  lies  the  history  of  nascent 
Christianity  and  a  little  more, — five  full  centuries 
of  intense,  complicated  and  colorful  life,  to  depict 
which  adequately  would  take  volumes.  One 
thread  only  of  this  complex  historical  fabric  I 
wish  to  draw  out  to  view. 

Just  as  decadent  paganism  was  interpreted  in 
terms  of  the  emperor  cult,  its  final  and  supremely 
characteristic  product,  so,  through  the  same  me- 

'*°Vegetius:  II. V. 

^^  As  a  terminus  ad  quern, — in  the  Codex  Justinianus  the 
title  "Augustalis"  seems  to  be  confined  to  the  Prefect  of  Egypt 
and  is  entirely  otiose,  see  Dig.  1:17;  C.  I.,  37;  cf.  Cod.  Theod., 
XVI,  X,  II. 


130     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

dium,  in  its  connection  with  the  same  system,  I 
would  view  nascent  Christianity.  I  do  this  be- 
cause in  this  contact,  which  became  a  conflict  a 
Voiitrance,  the  essential  quality  and  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity were  exhibited  as  nowhere  else.  If  I  mis- 
take not,  this  is  the  central  thread  of  early  Chris- 
tian history. 

Jesus,  in  His  teaching,  does  not  mention  the 
Roman  Empire  by  name  and  yet  incidentally  and 
also  in  the  general  substance  of  His  teaching  it  is 
quite  evident  that  He  knew  that  His  movement 
was  a  challenge  to  the  dominant  power  of  the 
world — a  challenge  bound  to  produce  conflict  and 
revolution.  Incidentally  He  made  this  remark: 
"ot  j(3a(7tXets  ro)v  edvcov  KVpievovaiv  avrcov,  /cat  oi  k^ovaia^ovTes 
avTO)v  evepyercLL  KoKovvrai,  vfiels  8e  ovx  ourcos,"  etc.^^^ 
It  cannot,  in  view  of  the  context,  be  a  mere  coin- 
cidence that,  in  a  passage  which  sharply  sets  His 
disciples  against  the  prevalent  ethnic  custom, 
Christ  should  use  the  familiar  divine  title  of  the 
Ptolemaic  kings.  The  exquisite  irony  involved  in 
the  contrast  between  the  verb-forms  and  the  title 
marks  it  as  original  and  as  the  utterance  of  one 
who  had  a  knowledge  of  world-movements. 

Moreover,  in  the  consistent  and  detailed  teach- 
ing of  Christ  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
which  is  constituted  through  the  organic  working 

^*'^Luke,  22:25. 


Ruler-Cult  and  Judao-Christian  Movement     131 

of  the  graces  of  love,  humility  and  unselfish  serv- 
ice, and  the  building  up  of  a  new  social  order  of 
His  adherents, — a  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this 
world  because  it  is  inward  and  spiritual,  there  is 
constant  implicit  reference  to  the  world-empire 
of  the  Caesars.  It  is  quite  evident  that,  while 
Jesus  was  not  a  revolutionist  in  the  ordinary  sense, 
yet,  if  His  words  had  power  to  put  themselves  into 
effect  and  embody  themselves  in  institutions,  a  new 
world-empire  was  sure  to  be  built  up  on  the  shat- 
tered foundations  of  the  old.  It  is  a  simple  fact, 
therefore,  that  Jesus  came  not  to  bring  peace  but 
a  sword.  Though  all  unrecognized  by  the  author- 
ities. He  precipitated  a  conflict  in  which  every 
existing  social  and  political  institution  was  in- 
volved, and,  most  of  all,  the  divine  preeminence  of 
the  emperor.  For,  both  in  His  teaching  and  in 
His  personality,  the  interpretation  of  which  in  re- 
lation to  God,  men  and  the  world,  was  early  seen 
to  be  the  essence  of  the  new  religion,  Christ  be- 
came a  challenge  to  Csesarism. 

The  first  working  of  that  challenge  was  the  well- 
nigh  immediate  deliverance  of  the  non-Jewish  be- 
lievers from  the  trammels  of  the  imperial  cult. 
This  emancipation  grew  more  and  more  evident 
until,  in  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers,  it 
became  the  burden  of  the  Christian  propaganda. 
There  are  few  passages  in  all  literature  more  no- 


132     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

ble  than  those  in  which  TertuUian  defines  his  posi- 
tion and  that  of  his  fellow-believers  with  reference 
to  the  empire  and  its  head — in  which  he  refuses 
to  call  the  emperor  god,  but  prays  for  him  with 
all  honest  fervor  and  devotion.-^^ 

Of  course,  this  inward  principle  of  Christianity 
was  only  gradually  disclosed  to  the  world.  When 
it  was  disclosed,  the  era  of  martyrdom  was  on. 
Let  us  trace  its  development. 

b.      CHURCH  AND  EMPIRE  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 

Throughout  the  entire  Book  of  the  Acts,  which 
breaks  off  abruptly  about  the  year  62  A.D.,  the 
attitude  of  the  Romans  to  the  Christians  was 
favorable  rather  than  otherwise.  At  the  end  of 
Acts  the  Apostle  Paul  was  a  prisoner  at  Rome, 
but  only  because  of  the  activity  of  the  Jews  against 
him  and  as  the  result  of  his  own  appeal  to  Caesar. 
He  was  treated  with  extreme  leniency  and  was 
apparently  confident  of  release. 

^See  TertuUian:  Apol.:  5,  in  which  he  points  out  how  the 
Romans  made  their  gods  by  oflScial  decision. 

Apol.:  10,  in  which  he  affirms  that  all  the  gods  were  deified 
men. 

Apol.:  30,  in  which  he  shows  how  irreverently  the  Romans 
treated  their  gods. 

Apol.:  30,  in  which  he  states  his  own  position.  This  is  a 
sublime  passage  both  from  a  religious  and  a  literary  point 
of  view.  Nothing  could  show  more  clearly  how  immeasurably 
Christianity  had  broadened  the  mental  horizon  of  its  advocates 
than  this  passage. 

Cf.  also  ibid.,  32-35  and  Lact.  Div.  Inst.,  1.13;  17. 


Ruler-Ciilt  and  Judao-Christian  Movement     133 

C.      CHURCH  AND  EMPIRE  IN   NERO's  REIGN  AND 
AFTER  THE  BEGINNING  OF  PERSECUTION 

In  the  year  64  A.D.,  the  Neronian  persecution 
broke  out,  in  the  course  of  which,  if  we  follow  the 
well-authenticated  tradition,  Paul  lost  his  life  as  a 
martyr,  but  only  after  release,  a  period  of  free- 
dom, a  second  arrest  and  trial.  From  that  time 
on,  the  Christians  were  in  danger  at  any  time  of 
being  arrested  as  malefactors,  that  is,  as  crimi- 
nals accused  of  specific  offenses  against  the  law. 
The  next  great  persecutor  of  the  Christian  body 
was  Domitian  and,  as  all  competent  historians 
have  noted,  a  great  change  had  come  over  the 
attitude  of  the  Roman  authorities.  Nero's  perse- 
cution was  individual  and  the  attacks  upon  Chris- 
tians immediately  subsequent  were  also  unorgan- 
ized and  sporadic,  based  largely  upon  accusations 
of  delators  and  trumped-up  criminal  charges. 

Under  Domitian,  as  reflected  in  the  Apocalypse 
and  even  earlier  as  shown  by  the  first  Epistle  of 
Peter,  persecution  has  become  regular,  organized 
and  pitiless,  but  more  important  still,  it  has,  in 
the  course  of  about  thirty  years,  become  criminal 
per  se  to  be  a  Christian.  No  form  of  wrong- 
doing other  than  belonging  to  the  Christian  body 
need  be  proved  against  the  accused  in  order  to 
bring  immediate   condemnation.     What  brought 


134     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

about  this  change  of  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the 
Roman  authorities  it  is  not  difficult  to  discover. 


d.     THE  CAUSES  OF  PERSECUTION 

Look  first  at  the  charges  against  Christians 
which  were  considered  by  Roman  officials  in  the 
early  period  and  those  which  were  dismissed  off- 
hand in  these  same  courts. 

In  every  instance  recorded  in  the  Book  of  the 
Acts,  when  Paul  alone  or  with  his  associates  was 
brought  before  the  Roman  tribunal,  the  question 
turned  not  on  his  guilt  or  innocence,  but  on  the 
question  of  jurisdiction  and  the  nature  of  the  ac- 
cusation. 

At  Philippi,^^^  the  crowd  accused  Paul  and  Silas, 
as  Jews,  with  teaching  what  was  unlawful  for  the 
Romans.  The  magistrates  were  evidently  greatly 
disturbed,  reasonably  enough,  for  it  was  danger- 
ous for  a  Roman  city  to  have  such  characters  as 
the  Christians  were  accused  of  being,  at  large,  and 
hastily  and  without  regard  for  forms  of  law,  or- 
dered them  severely  scourged  and  thrown  into 
prison.  This  was  a  mistake,  as  presently  was  rec- 
ognized, for  these  unknown  Jews  happened  to  be 
Romans.  The  magistrates  were  obliged  to  sue  for 
favor  in  order  to  get  rid  of  their  troublesome 
^Acts,  16:19  f. 


Ruler-Cult  and  Judao-Christian  Movement     135 

guests.  Here,  the  charge  held,  but  the  magis- 
trates acted  illegally  in  omitting  the  trial. 

At  Beroea,^^^  it  was  Jason,  the  entertainer  of 
the  Apostles,  who  was  dragged  by  the  mob  before 
the  magistrates  and  accused.  In  this  instance  also 
the  accusation  was  made  in  such  form  that  it 
held,  and  Jason  was  bound  over  for  examination. 
The  charge  was  that  the  Christian  preachers  were 
subverters  of  social  order,  that  they  acted  con- 
trary to  the  decrees  of  Caesar  by  affirming  the  ex- 
istence within  the  empire  of  another  king,  Jesus. 
As  I  say,  this  charge  was  legal  in  form  and  compe- 
tent to  the  court;  as  a  result,  the  accusation  was 
received.  This  fact,  namely,  that  the  charge  was 
legally  made,  explains  two  things,  the  disturbance 
of  the  magistrates,  and  the  haste  of  friends  to  get 
the  Apostles  out  of  the  city.  It  also  enables  us 
to  understand  what  constituted  a  legal  charge,  by 
which  alone  the  Christians  could  be  brought  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Courts. 

At  Corinth,^^^  Paul  was  brought  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  Gallio,  the  pro-Consul  of  Achaia, 
on  the  charge  of  teaching  men  to  worship  God 
contrary  to  the  law.  Gallio  instantly  discharged 
the  accused  and  drove  the  accusers  away  on  the 
ground  that  the  case  was  not  within  the  jurisdic- 

^"Acts,  17:1-9. 
'^'"Acts,  18:12  f. 


136     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

tion  of  his  court.  He  did  not  need  to  try  the  case 
and  therefore  would  not. 

At  Ephesus,^^^  trouble  arose  between  the  Paul- 
ine company  and  the  shrine  makers  and  sellers  of 
the  local  cult  of  Diana.  Note  as  germane  to  our 
whole  discussion  the  fact  that  the  religious  antag- 
onism arises  over  a  purely  local  worship.  It  is 
not  Jupiter  Capitolinus  for  whom  the  fanatics  are 
jealous,  but  Diana  of  the  Ephesians.  And  here 
an  extremely  interesting  fact  emerges.  The 
"Asiarchs" — that  is,  the  provincial  priests  of  the 
emperor  cult — took  the  side  of  Paul  to  the  extent 
of  giving  him  a  friendly  warning  not  to  brave  the 
fury  of  the  mob.  The  explanation  of  this  rather 
anomalous  proceeding  is  that  the  Asiarchs  had 
no  zeal  for  Diana  and  felt  no  antagonism  to  Paul 
as  long  as  they  recognized  no  danger  to  the  im- 
perial cult.  Later,  in  his  famous  letter,  the 
Emperor  Julian  ^^^  expressly  charged  the  pro- 
vincial priests  with  the  task  of  watching  the  Chris- 
tians, but  at  this  date  the  imperial  system  was  not 
aroused  against  the  Christians.  At  Ephesus  the 
antagonism  to  Paul  had  no  legal  standing  and  was 
easily  controlled  by  the  authorities. 

In  his  defense  before  Festus  at  Csesarea,  Paul 
expressly  stated  that  he  had  done  nothing  against 
Caesar  and,  to  cap  the  climax  of  the  whole  strug- 

^Acts,  19:23  f. 
^Letter  49. 


Ruler-Cult  and  Judao-Christian  Movement     137 

gle,  when  Festus  wanted  to  turn  him  over  to  the 
Jews,  appealed  to  Cassar.  The  appeal,  of  course, 
carried.  Later  Agrlppa  said  to  Festus  that  the 
prisoner  might  have  been  released  then  and  there 
had  he  not  set  the  machinery  of  the  Empire  in 
operation  by  appealing  to  Caesar. 

This  is  the  record  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts — and 
the  lesson  is  plain.  The  Christians  cannot  be 
brought  before  Roman  magistrates  to  be  tried  ex- 
cept for  political  offenses, — offenses  against  the 
law  of  the  empire  or  the  person  of  the  emperor. 
The  next  inference  also  is  inevitable,  that  between 
the  close  of  Acts  and  the  reign  of  Domitian,  when 
to  be  a  confessed  Christian  is  a  capital  offense 
per  se,  Christianity  has  become  a  political  offense 
in  the  two  senses  just  mentioned.  The  author  of 
I  Peter  urges  the  Christians  to  be  brave  in  suffer- 
ing ^^^  and  clearly  intimates  that  in  his  time  the 
believers  are  suffering  simply  for  being  Christians 
— i.e.,  for  the  name  of  Christ.  Christianity  is  no 
longer  a  phase  of  Judaism,  to  be  dismissed  as  Gal- 
lio  dismissed  it,  with  a  "look  ye  to  it"  addressed 
to  disorderly  Jews.  Christianity  is  now  seen 
to  be  a  deadly  menace  to  the  unity  of  the  empire 
and  the  supremacy  of  the  emperor.     The  Apoca- 

^®'I  Peter,  4:12-16  E't  dP^i-Sl^eade  kv  dvolJ'O.Tt  xPf-f^Tov  /zaKctptot 
OTL  t6  TTJs  86^r]s  kAl  rb  rod  deov  -n-vevfia  kcp'  u/xds  CLvaizaieTai  fxi]  yap  rts 
VfiQu  iracrx^ra.  w  <pov^^s  7)  KXkirrrjs  iJKaKOirocos,  ■^uiS  aWoTpLeTriaKOTros 
€t  ffk  ojs  xpicFTLavos,  fir]  ato-xyj'eo-^co,  So^a^kro  5k  tov  debv  ku  ti^  ovofiaTi, 


138     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

lypse  records  In  vivid  imagery  the  struggle  which 
had  just  begun  when  the  first  Petrine  letter  was 
written.  Rome  is  the  great  harlot  drunk  with 
the  blood  of  the  saints.  The  emperor,  or  rather 
the  imperial  system  (not  the  individual  emperor) 
considered  as  the  claimant  of  divine  honors,  is  the 
Beast  -"'^ — the  sum  total  of  the  forces  that  claim 
to  be  god  and  yet  are  against  God.  We  find  this 
same  antithesis,  of  paganism  centered  in  the  em- 
peror, and  the  followers  of  Christ  in  all  these 
later  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Westcott  has 
said:-"^^  "In  the  Emperor,  the  'world'  found  a 
personal  embodiment  and  claimed  divine  honors." 
A  single  sentence  of  Paul's  over  against  the  atti- 
tude of  Domitian,  the  emperor  of  John's  vision, 
will  show  how  this  struggle  arose.  Paul  says : 
*'No  man  speaking  in  the  Spirit  of  God  saith  Jesus 
is  anathema;  and  no  man  can  say  Jesus  is  Lord, 
but  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Of  course,  these  are  not  merely  forms  of  words 
— they  embody  the  whole  Christian  and  anti- 
Christian  confessions.  The  Christian  called  Jesus 
"Dominus."  He  could  not  also  call  the  emperor 
"Dominus" — as  Domitian  loved  to  be  called.  "Ad 
clamari  etiam  in  Ampitheatro  epuli  die  libenter: 
Domino  et  Dominae  feliciter."  ^^^ 

^'°Rev.  13. 

"^Epistle  to  John,  2d  edit.,  p.  268. 

"^Suetonius:  Dora.,   13. 


Ruler-Ciilt  and  Judceo-Christian  Movement     139 

This  situation,  of  which  we  catch  lurid  glimpses 
through  John's  flaming  imagery,  comes  plainly  be- 
fore us  in  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajan  -^^  and  the  lat- 
ter's  rescript  in  answer.  The  gist  of  Pliny's  re- 
port to  the  emperor  lies  in  the  words :  ''Interro- 
gavi  ipsos  an  essent  Christiani:  confitentes  iterum 
ac  tertio  interrogavi  supplicium  minatus,  perse- 
verantes  duci  jussi."  He  had  hesitated  formerly, 
"nomen  ipsum,  si  flagitus  careat,  an  flagitia  co- 
haerentia  nomini  peniantur."  That  hesitation  had 
apparently  passed  away,  or,  at  any  rate  did  not 
attach  to  the  action  which  he  had  chosen  to  fol- 
low. "Neque  enim  dubitabam  qualecumque  esse 
quod  faterentur,  pertinaciam  certe  et  inflexibilem 
obstinationem  debere  puniri."  The  final  test  for 
this  criminal  recalcitrancy  was  the  refusal  to  offer 
incense  in  the  presence  of  the  imperial  image. 
Pliny's  action  was  based  on  the  organic  law  of  the 
empire  already  in  operation,  and  was  approved 
by  Trajan.^"^* 

When  the  saintly  Polycarp  was  on  his  way  to 
trial,  he  was  asked  by  the  captain  of  police  or  the 
latter's  father:  ^'What  harm  is  there  in  saying 
Lord  Caesar  and  sacrificing  and  saving  your 
life?"  ^'^^  The  aged  Confessor  was  simply  asked 
to  call  Caesar  "Dominus"  and  Jesus  "Anathema" 

^^Plin.  Ep.,   90    (97). 

"'Ibid.,  91. 

^'''Eusebius  H.  Eccl.,  IV.  15. 15. 


140     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-Worship 

and  he  might  have  lived.  But  when  he  refused, 
the  court-room  was  filled  with  the  cry:  "Poly- 
carp  hath  confessed  that  he  is  a  Christian!"  ^"^^ 
No  other  condemnation  was  necessary  or  thought 
of.  He  had  blasphemed  the  deity  of  the  empire 
and  must  die  a  confessed  malefactor  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law. 


e.     CONCLUSION CHRIST  AND   C^SAR 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  investigation  is 
now  within  our  reach  and  would  seem  to  be  inev- 
itable. 

There  is  a  difference  between  paganism  and 
Christianity,  not  of  degree  but  of  kind.  That  dif- 
ference becomes  an  impassable  gulf  the  moment 
the  attempt  is  made  to  establish  genetic  connec- 
tion between  the  two  systems.  It  is  allowable  to 
call  paganism  a  preparation  for  Christianity,  in- 
asmuch as  it  constitutes,  especially  on  its  philo- 
sophical side,  the  broadest  and  deepest  disclosure 
in  history  of  the  limitations  and  needs  of  the  hu- 
man heart.  It  is  not  possible  in  view  of  the  facts, 
many  of  the  most  significant  of  which  have  been 
passed  in  review  here,  to  make  Christianity  an 
evolutionary  derivative  of  the  system  which  it 
antagonized  and  superseded. 

Christianity  and  imperial  paganism  are  most 

""'Ibid.,  IV,   15.25. 


Ruler-Cult  and  Judao-Christian  Movement     141 

widely  separated  at  the  point  where,  historically, 
they  come  nearest  each  other.^'''^  This  point  of 
approach  is  found  in  the  antithesis  of  Divus  Im- 
perator  and  Christus  Dominus. 

These  two  figures  confront  each  other,  the  one 
the  genius  of  paganism — the  other  the  protago- 
nist, representative,  and  Lord  of  Christianity.^'^^ 

There  is  the  same  centrality  of  position  in  each 
case,  the  same  solitary  preeminence,  the  same  as- 
criptions of  heavenly  power  and  glory.  The  sim- 
ilarity here  is  startling.  There  is  no  phraseology 
of  devotion  which  the  Christian  could  apply  to 
Christ, — Lord,  Saviour,  Son  of  God,  God, — 
which  has  not  been  applied  to  the  Caesars,  and  to 
their  predecessors  in  royalty  of  other  times  and 
in  faraway  lands.    But  there  the  resemblance  ends. 

No  one  can  possibly  be  blind,  whether  Chris- 
tian or  not,  to  the  vast  difference  in  character  be- 
tween the  paganism  which  deified  the  Caesars  and 
the  Christianity  which  worshiped  Christ.  On 
the  one  hand,  a  fawning  sycophancy,  where  there 
was  not  abject  superstition,  deep  despair  and  ^'un- 
fathomable corruption" ;  on  the  other,  a  lofty  the- 

'"Dill  {op.  cit.,  pp.  622,  3)  says  almost  the  same  thing  with 
respect  to  Mithraism:  "One  great  weakness  of  Mithraism  lay- 
precisely  here — that  in  place  of  the  narrative  of  a  Divine  life, 
instinct  with  human  sympathy,  it  (Mithraism)  had  only  to 
oflFer  the  cold  symbolism  of  a  cosmic  legend." 

^^  For  the  pagan  view  of  this  contrast  see  Julian:  Caesares, 
Herthein's  Ed.,  p.  431.  Julian  seizes  upon  Christ's  attitude  to- 
ward the  sinner  for  his  attack. 


142     Aspects  of  Roman  Emperor-W orship 

ism,  a  pure  morality,  a  sane,  sober,  unified  grasp 
of  truth,  a  joy  of  life  and  a  deathless  hope.  But 
that  is  not  the  core  of  the  difference.  That  differ- 
ence is  focused  in  the  two  contrasted  figures  of 
Caesar  and  Christ. 

For  words  which  but  reveal  the  pitiful  human 
weakness,  the  absurdity  and  the  baseness  of  the 
greatest  of  the  Caesars,  when  applied  to  Christ, 
are  like  a  cluster  of  jewels  which  belong  to  the 
sunlight  to  which  they  add  nothing,  but  from  which 
they  gather  and  reflect  unimaginable  splendors. 

For,  after  all,  the  problem  of  religion  is  not  to 
produce  descriptive  epithets,  but  a  personaHty  to 
fit  them.  Here  paganism  failed.  Her  deified 
Caesars  could  not  always  fill,  let  alone  adorn,  the 
robes  of  royalty,  to  say  nothing  of  the  more  august 
garments  of  deity.  While  the  humble  Galilean, 
whose  Kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  whose 
crown  was  of  thorns  and  whose  robe  was  one  of 
mockery,  brought  heaven  to  earth  and  made  real 
to  men  the  glory  of  the  Unseen  and  Eternal. 

[Kdt  6  X670S  aap^  kyevero  kcll  kaKrjvoxrev  ev  rjfjLlv,  kcli 
kdeaacLfxeda  Trjv  86^av  avrovj  86^av  cos  jJLOvoyevovs  irapa 
Trarpos,  irXijp'qs  x^P^'^os  kcli  oKTjdeLas.l 

[Qeov  ovdels  e&paKev  irwiroTe  6  jiovoyevrjs  6e6s  6  cov  els 
Tov  koKttov  tov  irarpos  kKelvos  e^7)y'f)aaT0. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.  Ancient  Writers  and  Source-Books  (Abbrevia- 
tions). 
Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum    (C.I.L.). 
Corpus    Inscriptionum    Graecarum    (C.    I. 

G.). 

Corpus  Inscriptionum  Atticarum  (C.I.A.). 

Dittenberger :  Sylloge  Inscriptionum  Grae- 
carum (S.I.G.). 

Boissieu:  Inscriptions  Antique  de  Lyon 
(I.A.L.). 

Dessau:  Inscriptiones  Latinae  Selectae 
(I.L.S.). 

Eckhel:  Doctrina  Numorum  Antlquorum 
(D.N.A.). 

Orelli-Henzen  (Or.H.)   Inscriptions. 

Wordsworth:   Fragments  of  Early  Latin. 

Wissowa  (Dr.  Georg)  Religion  und  Kultus 
der  Romer  in  Miiller's  Handbuch  des  Klassise- 
hen  Alterthums  Wissenschaft.  Vol.  IV.  3d 
Ed. 

L.  Preller:    Roman  Mythologie,  i  vol.  ed. 
Berlin,  1865  (R.M.). 
143 


144  Bibliography 

Pauly-Wlssowa :    Real  Encyclopaedic,  New 
Edition  (P.W.). 

Sacred  Books  of  the  East  (S.B.E.). 
Breasted:       Records     of     Ancient     Egypt 

(R.A.E.). 

Fischer:  Romische  Zeittafeln. 
Fynes-Clinton :    Fasti,  etc. 
Kiepert  and  Hiilsen:   Formae  Urbis  Romae 
Ant  i  quae. 

Suetonius:     De  Vita  Caesarum   (Suet.). 
Dio  Cassius:  History  of  Rome  (Dio.). 
Tacitus:    Annales  (Tac.  Ann.). 
Livius :    Annales. 
Diodorus  Siculus   (Diod.  Sic). 
Diogenes  Laertius  (Diog.  Laer.). 
Seneca:     De  Ira. 
Cicero : 

Ad  Quintum,  et  al. 

Orationes. 
Lucretius:     De  Rerum  Natura. 
Juvenal  (Mayor's  Edition.) . 
Philo:     Legatio  ad  Gaium. 
Josephus:     Antiquities,  etc. 
Monumentum  Ancyranum  Augusti  (Momm- 

sen). 

Velleius  Paterculus:     Roman  History. 
Pliny:     Natural  History  (H.N.). 
Pliny  (The  Younger)  :   Epistles. 


Bibliography  145 

Ovid: 

Metamorphoses. 

Fasti. 
Herodotus :     History. 
Servius:    Scholae,  etc. 
iEschylus:   Persae. 
Flavius  Volpiscus. 
Plutarch:     Lives,  etc. 
Trebellius  Pollio. 
Philostratus :     Apollonius  of  Tyana    (App. 

Ty.). 

Ammianus  Marcellinus. 

Statius : 

Silvae. 
Thebais. 

Valerius  Maximus  (V.M.). 

Vergil:     Bucolica;  Georgica. 

Plato :     Meno. 

Lucan :    Pharsalia. 

Lucian :    Deorum  Concilium ;  Menippus. 

Eusebius:    Hist.  Eccl.  (H.E.). 

Lactantius:    Divinarum    Institutionum    Sep. 
Lib. 

Firmicus  Maternus. 

Augustine:     De  Civitate  Dei. 

Justin  Martyr. 

Prudentius. 

Tertullian:    Apologia,  etc. 


146  Bibliography 

11.  Modern  Writers  and  Monographs. 
Mommsen: 

Romische   Geschichte,   5th  Ed.    (Rom. 
Gesch.). 

Staatsrecht,  2nd  Ed.  (Staats.). 
Marquardt:      Romische      Staats  verwaltung 
(1885)   (Rom.Staats.). 

Dollinger:      Judenthum    und    Heidenthum 
Regensburg,   1857    (J.H.). 

Teuffel:       History    of     Roman    Literature 
(Eng.tr.). 
Erman:     Life  in  Angient  Egypt    (Eng.tr., 

1894). 

Brugsch:    Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs  (Eng. 

tr.,  London,   1891). 

Farnell:    Cults  of  the  Greek  States    (Vol. 
I-V). 

Mahaffy: 

Greek    Life    and    Thought     (London, 

1887). 

History  of  Egypt  under  the  Ptolemies 
,  (London,  1899). 

Empire  of  the  Ptolemies  (N.  Y.,  1895). 
Lyall:   Asiatic  Studies  (London,  1899). 
Ramsay: 

Cities  and  Bishoprics  of  Phrygia. 
Historical  Geography  of  Asia  Minor. 


Bibliography  147 

Sihler: 

Testimonium  Animae   (T.A.). 
Cicero  of  Arpinum   (C.  of  A.). 
Fowler : 

Roman  Festivals,  1899  (R.F.). 
Religious    Experience    of    the    Roman 
People,  191 1   (R.E.R.P.). 

Dill:    Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus 
Aurelius  (London,  1905). 

Aust:     Die  Religion  der  Romer,  Miinster, 
1899  (R.R.). 

Beurlier:  Le  Culte  Imperiale  (Paris,  1891). 
Hirschfeld:      Monograph    in    "Sitzungsbe- 
richte  des  Akadamie,"  Berlin,  1888.     (Band  II) 
Von  Domaszewski : 

Geschichte  der  Romische  Kaiser. 
Abhandlungen  zur  Romischen  Religion. 
Cumont : 

Mysteries  of  Mythra  (Eng.  tr.). 
Mysteries  of  Mythra   (2nd.Fr.Ed.). 
Textes  et  Monuments    (Paris,    1902). 
Heinen  (H.)  :   Zur  Begriindung  des  Kaiser- 
cultes.    Klio,  191 1,  Vol.  II,  pp.  129-177. 

Note  on  Bibliography. — This  list  of  books 
which,  simply  as  a  list,  might  be  indefinitely  in- 
creased, has  been  constructed  out  of  the  investiga- 


148  Bibliography 

tion.  I  have  not  ventured  to  include  any  work, 
ancient  or  modern,  which  I  have  not  consulted 
and  many  even  of  these  have  been  omitted.  More-^ 
over,  I  have  not  allowed  myself  to  form  any  im- 
portant judgment  except  on  the  basis  of  an  ancient 
text.  To  that  extent  my  opinions,  right  or  wrong, 
are  my  own. 


INDEX 


Abeshu,   17 

Aero,  71 

Aeneas,  44 

Aeschylus,    19 

Agrippina  deified,  760.,  i03 

Ahura  Mazda,  19,  118 

Alexander  the   Great,  24,  35, 

85 
Alexander,  Romance  of,  24 
Alexander  Severus,  20 
Alii,    cousin    of    Mohammed, 

deified,   36 
Antinous,    106 

Antiochus,    i,    11;    deified,    36 
Antonius,    M.,    deified,    57,    60 
Apocalypse   (The),  133 
Apollo,  32n. 
Arsinoe  Philadelphus,   deified, 

27 
Artaxerxes,  20 
Arval  Brothers,  The,  78   and 

n.,  82n. 
Asclepius,    32n. 
Asia  Minor,  79,  80 
Astrabakos,   hero,    34 
Athenagoras,  115 
Athens,  79 

Atossa  d.  of  Cyrus,  20 
Attalidae,  36,  69 
Attalus,   1;   deified,  36 
Attalus  Philadelphus,   36n. 
Atticus,   fr.   of   Cicero,   45,    57 
Augustales,   66b.,   70    and   n.; 

77,  83,. 89 
Augustalia,   69 
Augustan   Age,   64 


Augusti  (The),  75,  76,  77,  78, 
83 

Augustus,  48,  53,  54,  59,  69, 
70  and  n.  (see  Sodales,  Cul- 
tores  Provincial  Priests, 
High  Priests),  71,  72  and 
Jupiter  72n.;  73,  74,  79,  81, 
91.  See  Polemon,  Vergil  on 
100;  101,  112;  as  Apollo, 
121    and   n.,    128 

Aust,  see  bib.,  47,  48,  49 

Avesta   (Zend),  18,  116 

Babylon,  16 

Berenice,  d.  of  Ptol.  II,  deified, 

28,  29 
Beurlier,    58,    80 
Bigg,  124 

Boeck,    28,    57n.,    72n. 
Boissieu,  48,   7in.,   87,   125 
Breasted,    J.    H.,   22,    23 
Brugsch,   H.  K.,  29 
Buddhism,  41 

Caesar,  J.,  51,  53,  54,  55,  56, 
57  and  n.,  58,  59,  6on.,  81, 
82,   113 

Caesarea    (temples),  700. 

Caesarion,  son  of  Caesar  and 
Cleopatra,  deified,  30,  31 

Caligula,  Gaius,  compared 
with  Tib.,  94;  Mommsen  on, 
95;  and  Drusilla,  95;  and 
Ptol.,  96;  madness  of,  96, 
102,    120,    127 

Cameo    (Paris),   112,   113 


149 


150 


Index 


Carter,  J.  B.,  42,  47,  48 
China,  deification  in,  20,  21 
Christ    and    Caesar,    140-143 
Cicero,  M.  T.,  45n.,  510.,  6on., 

i24n. 
Claudius,  91,  102,  103,  104 
Codex   Theodosianus,   48n. 
Commodus,  123 
Confucius,  deified,  41 
Cultores,    70,    89 
Cumont,  115,  123 
Cyclades,  26 

Darius,  20 
Darmesteter,    116 
De  La  Saussaye,  42 
Deification,    in   paganism,    37; 

and  Mythology,   38,  41,  42; 

not    un-Roman,    43,    44,    45; 

Cult  of  Dead  and  45n.,  52, 

103,    115 
Deification,  total,  82 
Dessau,    90 

Deus  Invictus,  51,  123 
Di  Manes,  45 
Dill,    S.,    67n.,    115 
Diocletian,  105 
Dio    Cassius,    47,    56,    58,    66y 

82,    105 
Diodorus   Siculus,   20 
Diogenes  Laertius,  24 
Dioscuroi,    32n.,    33 
Divi   Parentura,   45 
Divi,  48,  78,  82,  III 
Divine  King  theory,   25 
Dollinger,   J.   J.   I.   von,    330., 

67,  82,  86 
Domitian,   77,   78,   90,   98,   138 
Druses,  The,  40 
Dungi  of  Ur,  deified,  17 
Duruy,    48n.,    5on. 
Dynasties    (divine),    28 

Ecshel,    97 

Egypt,  deification  in,  22 


Elijah,  deified  as  Khuddr,  40 
Emperor     Cult,     81,     82,     see 
Temples;  83,  84,  85,  88,  89, 
91,  93,  99,  100,  III,  115  ab- 
sorbs   Mithra    and    Apollo; 
128,  129 
Emperors,  81,  94 
Entemena   of   Lagash,    16 
Erman,    on    early    deification, 

22n.,  25 
Etana,   hero,   deified,   16 
Euhemerus,  34,  38,  39,   114 
Eumenes,    36 

Fairbairn,  A.  M.,  124 

Farnell,  L.  R.,   33 

Flamen,    72,    82 

Flavian  House,  The,  77,  90 

Flora,    114 

Fowler,    W.    W.,    42,    43,    46, 

47,  49,    50,   51,    123 
Frazer,   J.    G.,   42 

Gallienus,    Emp.,    as    sun-god, 

122 
Gautama,  the  Buddha,  deified, 

41, 

Genius,  Worship  of,  46,  47; 
Romae,  49;    78,   86,    iii,    115 

Gimil   Sin,   deified,    17 

Glory,  Divine,  of  Persians,  18, 
116 

Gods  and  men  (in  Trojan  sto- 
ries), 44;  kinship  with 
claimed  by  Romans,  45 

Gratidianus,  M.  M.,  deified  by 
the  people,   51 

GriflSs,   W.   E.,   2in. 

Griffith,    F.   LI.,    28n. 

Grote,    G.,    38,    39 

Gudea,  of  Shirpurla,  deified, 
16 

Hadrian,    113 

Hakim  Ibn  Allah,   deified,  40 


Index 


151 


Harnack,   A.,   123 

Harrison,   J.   E.,    33 

Heinen  (inscriptions),  see  bib., 

67n. 
Henzen     (inscriptions),     ySn., 

82 
Hephaestion,    deified,    25 
Heracles    (Hercules),    33    and 

n.,  44 
Hermes,   33 

Hero-cult  and  deification,  3 if. 
Herodotus,    ipn. 
Heroes  and  gods,  33 
Hirschfeld,  O.,  36,  42,  57,  62, 

83    and   n.,   96n. 
Hopkins,  E.  W.,  40 
Horace,  47 

How    Chi,    deified,   21 
Hvareno,  see  glory,  divine 

Iliad,  The,   no   deification   in, 

31. 
Iranian  Kings,   19 

Jains  of  India,  40 
Japan,   deification  in,  21 
Jastrow,    M.,    16,    i7n. 
Jesus  (and  the  Imp.  cult),  130 
Jews,  The,  and  Caligula,  127; 

and  Emp.  worship,  i26n. 
Judaism,  99 

Julii,  claim  descent  from  Ve- 
nus, 44 
Julian   House,   The,    55,   73n., 
122 

Kingdom  of  God  and  Caesar- 
ism,  131 
Knox,    G.    W.,   41 
Krall,  27 

Laodicea,  Feast  of,  77n. 
Lar    Compitalis,   46,   47 
Larentina,    106 
Lares,  Worship  of,  48n. 


Lucretius,  T.,   34,   52,   55 
Ludi   Sasculares,   of  Aug.,   i2i 
Ludus,  The   (of  Seneca),  102, 

io3f. 
Lysander     of  Sparta,     deified, 

35 

MacCulloch,  p.  4in. 

Mahaffy,  J.  P.,  28,  29 

Man-worship,    15,    16 

Manes,    45,    47,    67 

Marquardt,  46,  78 

Martin,   W.  A.  P.,  41 

Maspero,  24n. 

Mazdaism,  Herod  on,  i9n.,  84; 
and  Monotheism,  116;  117, 
119 

Mendes   Stele,   The,   26 

Miller,  C.  W.,  24n. 

Minucius,  Felix,  n6 

Minyas,   33 

Mithra,  not  absorbed,  n8; 
sun-god,  118;  and  King- 
worship,  118;  in  the  West, 
119;  and  Imp.  Cult,  120; 
Harnack  on,  123 

Mitra,  iden.  with  Mithra,  iii, 
117 

Mommsen,  T,  20,  56,  69,  7on., 
7in.,  91,  95,  113 

Naram  Sin,   17 
Naksi-Rustam,    inscription    of, 

20 
Naturism    and    Man-cult,    125 
Nero,  triumph  of  in  68  A.D., 

65 ;  Lucan  on,  loi ;  102,  103, 

105,    120,    122;    persecution 

under,    133 
Numen,  in  ruler-cult,   6in. 
Numina,  45 
Nung  Shen,  deified,  21 

Odyssey,  The,  deification  in 
present  text,  31 


152 


Index 


Olympian  deities,  34,  68,  72, 
80,   90,    III,    112,    114 

Ovid,  on  ^neas,  44;  46,  47; 
on  Romulus,  49 

Paganism,   in  conflict,  92;   99, 

107,      HI 

Pantheism,  47,   124 

Pausanias,  35 

Pergamos,  69 

Persecution,  under  Nero,   133 ; 

under  Domitian,  133;  causes 

of,    134-140 
Persians,     deification     among, 

18,   84,   see  Mithra 
Petronius,  127 

Philip  of  Macedon,  deified,  35 
Philo  of  Alexandria,  127 
Philostratus,  98n. 
Pliny,    the    Elder,    45,    46,    57 
Pliny,    the   Younger,    100,    139 
Plutarch,  33,  34n.,  35,  6on. 
Polemius,   Alexander,   24 
Polemon  of  Pontus,  91 
Polybius,    85 
Polytheism,    fragmentary,    88; 

weakness    of,    108-111,    114, 

124 
Pompey,  the  Great,  deified,  57 
Poppaea   Sabina,   deified,   76n., 

105 
Preller,    L.,    50,    63n. 
Propertius,   121 
Provincial   Priests,  7on. 
Pseudo-Callisthenes,   24 
Ptah,  27 
Ptolemies,  The,  deified,  25f. 

Quintus    Cicero,    57n. 
Quirinus,  49;  and  Mars,  50 

Ramsay,    W.    M.,    33n.,    76n., 

126 
Rawlinson,    on    "Son    of    Re," 

22 


Re,  23,  24 

Renouf,    P.,    22n. 

Revillout,  26 

Rhodians,  The,  26 

Rhys,  J.,  42 

Rogers,  R.  W.,   17   and  n. 

Roma-cult,    The,    35,    62,    63, 

72 
Roman    religion.    The,    85,    87 
and  n. 


Saoshyant,  19 
Sardis,  coin  of,  75n. 
Segimundus,   Aug.,   priest,    90, 

Sejanus,    105 

Seleucidae,  36 

Seneca,  51;  Ludusof,  102 

Shintoism,   21 

Sihler,    E.    G.,    31,    32n.,    35, 

51 
Sitlington-Sterret,  79,  80 
Smith,   W.  R.,   42 
Smyrna,  and  Roma-cult,  62 
Sodales,   70 
Speer,  R.  E.,  4in. 
Statue-worship   (Imperial),  63 

and  n.,  66  and  n. 
Suetonius,    56,    58,    68,    73,   74, 

82,  98n.,  101,  103,  104 

Tacitus,  62,  65,  69,  71,  97,  103 
Temples     (of     Imp.     cult     at 

Rome),  82 
Tertullian,  106,  114,  115,  13211, 
Teuffel  (Rom.  Lit.),  24n.,  46 
Throne-names  (divine),  28 
Tiberius,    74,    75n.,    94;     and 

Augustan    Cult,    96    and    n., 

97,  98,  112;  statues  of,  114, 

120,   128 
Titus    (Emp.),    68n. 
Trajan,  100,  113  and  n. 
Tullia,  d.  of  Cic,  45,   124 


Index 


153 


Underwood,  H.  C,  4111. 
Unification,  under  Emp.  Wor., 
88f. 

Valerius,  Maximus,   59,  97 

Varuna,  117 

Vedas,   The,    117 

Vegetius,  129 

Velleius   Paterculus,    59,    6in^ 

105 
Verus,  105 
Vespasian,  98,  104 


Wassner,  46 

Westcar  Papyrus,  The,  25 
Wilson,  S.  A.,  on  Bahaisra,  41 
Wissowa,    G.,    on    Caesar    as 

divus,    53,    59,    63,    66,   80 
Wolfe   Expedition,    79 
Worship  of  Emp.  in  life-time, 

64,  68 

Zarathustra    (Zoroaster),    19; 

deified,   116 
Zoroastrianisra,  see  Mazdaism 


WORLD    WORSHIPS     SERIES 

History  of  Christianity.  Four  vol- 
umes.    By  Andrew  Stephenson. 

Sex  Worship  and  Symbolism  of 
Primitive  Races.  By  Sanger  Brown, 
11. 

Devil  Worship,  the  Sacred  Books 
AND  Traditions  of  the  Yezidiz.    By 


Zoroastrianism    and    Judaism.      By 
George  William  Carter. 

Messiahs,  Christian  and  Pagan.    By 
Wilson  D.  WaUis. 

Roman  Emperor- Worship.      By  Louis 
Matthews  Sweet. 


RICHARD  G.  BADGER,  PUBLISHER,  BOSTON 


